Sitting of 13 December 2000

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

  COMMITTEE OF SELECTION
  Ordered,
  That Charlotte Atkins be discharged from the Committee of Selection and Mr. Graham Allen be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Touhig.]

Oral Answers to Questions
  WALES
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  WALES

    Bicentenary
    Mr. Desmond Swayne: What discussions he has had with the First Secretary about events to celebrate the bicentenary of the United Kingdom. [142000]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. David Hanson): None.
    Mr. Swayne: I find that remarkably shocking. Does the Under-Secretary agree that a nation needs to have a sense of its history for its self-respect? Will he, however, confirm that this rotten Government have no intention whatever of celebrating the bicentenary of the United Kingdom? Has not the Minister for patriotism got anything to say about that?
    Mr. Hanson: The bicentenary of the 1707 Act of Union, which united the Westminster Parliament with Scotland, was in 1907. The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland came into effect in 1922, and I do not really expect to live to see its bicentenary in due course. As the hon. Gentleman will know, the bicentenary of the 1801 Act of Union falls next year, and the Government will recognise the significance of that. The First Secretary and I have not discussed the matter.
    Mr. Barry Jones: In Wales and Shotton, steelworkers will not be celebrating; they are appalled at the prospect of further redundancies. Does my hon. Friend know that steelworkers are saying that it appears that redundancies are asked of us on this side of
    622
    the channel, but that in Holland there are fewer? Is there any way in which Her Majesty's Government might help steelworkers in Wales and at Shotton in my constituency?
    Mr. Hanson: I praise the ingenuity of my right hon. Friend, whose question involves the interests of his constituency. I represent a neighbouring constituency, and he and I know that steel is important to north-east Wales. He raised an important issue. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is in discussions with British Steel and Cores and with the steel trade unions and Mike Lehey about those matters. I know that he hopes to raise the matter again with Sir Brian Moffat, the chairman of Corns. I recognise that steel is important to Wales in the north, in the south and in the valleys. We shall do what we can to raise those issues on behalf of the Government.

    Children's Commissioner
    Mrs. Betty Williams: What discussions he has had with the First Secretary about extending the power of the Children's Commissioner for Wales. [142001]
    Mr. Martyn Jones: What discussions he has had with the First Secretary about extending the power of the Children's Commissioner for Wales. [142002]
    The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Paul Murphy): I am pleased to tell the House that the Children's Commissioner for Wales Bill was published yesterday. That Bill has been widely welcomed and, yesterday, in the National Assembly for Wales, leaders of all political parties in Wales pledged their support to me when I outlined the legislative programme in their Chamber.
    Mrs. Williams: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the speed with which he and the Government moved, following the calls by various organisations for the appointment of a Children's Commissioner. The Waterhouse report, which was published in February this year, recommended the creation of the post. I stress how pleased we were that amendments to the Bill that became the Care Standards Act 2000 improved that legislation. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Ms Morgan), who campaigned for the creation of the position. Does the Secretary of State agree that the commissioner who was appointed last week, Mr. Peter Clarke, will radically improve the welfare and rights of children in Wales?
    Mr. Murphy: Yes, of course I can do that. My hon. Friend is aware that the establishment of a Children's Commissioner was a manifesto commitment of the Labour party in the 1999 Assembly elections, and that that was supported by other parties in Wales. It was the first recommendation of the Waterhouse report. As a north Wales Member, I know that my hon. Friend is particularly appreciative of that. The Bill will extend the powers of the commissioner to include public bodies that are overseen by the Assembly in Wales, and I welcome the appointment of Mr. Peter Clarke as the first children's champion in the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Martyn Jones: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the rapid publication of the Children's Commissioner

    623
    for Wales Bill yesterday is proof that the Assembly and the United Kingdom Government are working together well for the people of Wales? Is not that an example of the way in which the Government can respond quickly to the legislative needs of Wales?
    Mr. Murphy: Indeed it is. I obviously agree with my hon. Friend. As I said, when I was in the National Assembly yesterday delivering the legislative programme, all parties there recognised the importance of the appointment. That shows that the devolution settlement for Wales is working well and that we in the House will be able to give the Assembly the tools that it needs to do its job of improving public services in Wales. It also shows that there can be—indeed, there is—a strong working partnership between the United Kingdom Government and the Assembly, which will improve the quality of life of people in Wales and especially, in this instance, that of all our children in Wales.
    Mr. John Bercow: In recognising the appropriateness of the role of the Children's Commissioner in looking after minors in local authority homes and a number of other specified circumstances, does the Secretary of State nevertheless agree that it is vital that that role should not be extended in such a way as to supplant the natural and usually appropriate role of ordinary parents? What steps have been taken to ensure that we avoid that eventuality?
    Mr. Murphy: Of course that role does not supplant the role of family life and of parents in any way, but enhances it. The hon. Gentleman is aware that the main reason for implementing the Bill so quickly, and the impetus behind that, is the Waterhouse report and the inquiry that led up to it. I am sorry to say that there were many examples of parents who did not exercise their responsibilities. It is obviously important to understand the role of parents, but the hon. Gentleman will agree that everyone welcomes the creation of the post, the person appointed to it and the work that he will do.
    Mr. Win Griffiths: The Bill covering the powers of the Children's Commissioner, which was published yesterday, contains a schedule dealing with those persons and arrangements that will be subject to review—13 of the 24 are all-Wales bodies, which can be subject to the commissioner's powers. However, the Wales Youth Agency is not mentioned in that list. Is it dealt with by another measure or has there been an oversight?
    Mr. Murphy: As my hon. Friend is aware, the commissioner will have oversight of all public bodies in Wales, especially those that are dealt with by the National Assembly. Any functions that the Wales Youth Agency exercises on behalf of the Assembly or of its sponsored bodies will be a matter for the Children's Commissioner to deal with if necessary. However, I shall consider further the points that my hon. Friend has made.
    Mr. Robert Walter: The Secretary of State will be aware that the Opposition have supported the establishment of a Children's Commissioner for Wales. My colleagues here and in the National Assembly for Wales have spoken in favour of the appointment and
    624
    we join the Secretary of State in wishing Mr. Peter Clarke well in his challenging job, although many have wondered why England will not benefit from a similar commissioner.
    As the House has approached its consideration of the new legislation, my colleagues in the Welsh Assembly and I have voiced our concerns about the rights of parents. Will the Secretary of State be absolutely clear with hon. Members and tell us where he believes that the dividing line lies between the powers of the Children's Commissioner and the rights and responsibilities not of those parents who are responsible for child abuse, but of normal, caring parents?
    Mr. Murphy: I do not believe that there is any dividing line as such, because normal, caring parents in Wales will welcome the appointment of the Children's Commissioner, who will have a general role as the children's champion in Wales. As I said to the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), I believe that the appointment does not supplant, but enhances the role of the family and of parents in Welsh society. I have not the slightest doubt that Peter Clarke's appointment will be welcomed by all parents in Wales. The hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter) may be a member of the Committee that deals with the Children's Commissioner for Wales Bill, and I know that he will support its passage through the House.

    Miners Compensation Scheme
    Ann Clwyd: If he will make a statement on progress in respect of the miners compensation scheme. [142003]
    The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Paul Murphy): On 29 November, I was at a meeting of the monitoring group dealing with that issue. We agreed to set up a specific Welsh monitoring group, which will bring together all those involved in the process in Wales. I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree, as will all Members of the House, that it is vital that everyone involved in the process pulls together to speed up payments to our ex-miners.
    Ann Clwyd: As my right hon. Friend is only too well aware, ex-miners all over the country are still dying before receiving their full and final compensation—men such as a constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Mr. Touhig), John Hopkins, who, sadly, died on Monday. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that nothing stands in the way of making a priority of getting sick and elderly ex-miners and ex-miners' widows to the top of the queue and that nothing blocks their way?
    Mr. Murphy: I could not agree more with everything that my hon. Friend says. She and I, like a number of Members of the House, represent Welsh mining valleys. I also sympathise with the family of Mr. John Hopkins of Crumlin, who was a constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Mr. Touhig). The father of my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) and my father worked in the same pit. We can understand the feelings of former miners and the widows of former miners, and I entirely agree with her that we should give priority to older ex-miners, those who are gravely ill and

    625
    the elderly widows. I will certainly ensure that, when the Welsh monitoring group meets in the new year, we do all that we can to make certain that the process recognises the need to prioritise those people.
    Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: A fortnight ago I addressed a public meeting in Ammanford on this subject. It was attended by many miners and miners' representatives. Once again, I made the case that the compensation recovery unit should not apply to compensation payments. I was quizzed by a new Labour councillor and another member of new Labour, who said that the miners should not be made a special case. Is that the right hon. Gentleman's view, or were those new Labour wretches just playing politics with the issue?
    Mr. Murphy: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman should talk about "playing politics with the issue". Many politicians of all persuasions in Wales are convinced that this is not a matter for party politics, but a matter that we should all take so seriously that there is no question of party politics. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman agrees with that.
    I am in contact with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security, whose Department has been very sympathetic to the case of former miners. Obviously we must consider everyone who is in the same position in terms of compensation—those who have been injured at work, for instance—but I understand the hon. Gentleman's point.
    I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) has paid particular attention to the issue. He, too, has been in contact with the Department of Social Security, and we are very conscious of the points that both he and the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) have made.
    Mr. Ted Rowlands: I warmly welcome the proposal for a central monitoring group in south Wales, which may speed up payments. The arrangements have been bedevilled by a complex handling agreement, which comes not from the Government or from Ministers, but from the court. According to that agreement, priority was supposed to be given to the oldest and sickest miners and to widows. A points system was agreed, but it does not seem to have worked. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that the monitoring group sees that the arrangement under the handling agreement is implemented, so that the oldest and sickest miners can be given priority?
    Mr. Murphy: As I said in answer to earlier questions, I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. It is vital for all involved in the process—the Department of Trade and Industry and other Departments, the National Assembly where this applies to it, solicitors, the two companies working in the field and everyone else concerned—to ensure above all else that we give priority to the oldest miners, those who are gravely ill and widows.

    Farming
    Miss Anne McIntosh: What representations he has received on the economic position of farmers in Wales; and if he will make a statement. [142004]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. David Hanson): My right hon Friend the Secretary of State for Wales and I discuss a range of economic issues relating to farmers with Assembly Secretaries and with representatives of both main Welsh farming unions. I am confident that the Government and the National Assembly for Wales have taken all appropriate steps to assist Welsh farmers to achieve a sustainable agricultural industry. The United Kingdom-wide action plan for farming, coupled with the rural development plan for Wales and the industry's own resilience and coherent approach to rural development in Wales, are the right tools to deliver an improved economic position for farmers.
    Miss McIntosh: Does the Minister agree that farmers' incomes have been hit particularly badly in Wales because of the unprecedented farming crisis, which especially affects livestock and hill farmers and which has been compounded by the recent floods? What hope can he give Welsh farmers that they will still be farming and earning a living in two or three years' time?
    Mr. Hanson: I recognise that the income figures produced recently reflect severe difficulties in the farming industry. The Government and some Opposition Members realise that this is a long-term issue. The Government have given £600 million of additional support to Welsh farmers and are taking a number of steps to help them through, such as the rural development plan, the consultation document "Farming for the Future", the agri-food partnership and Agenda 2000.
    This is a difficult issue, but the Government are trying to address the real needs of farmers. Many of the problems are long-standing, and relate to actions taken during 18 years of Conservative rule.
    Mr. Jon Owen Jones: Farmers are indeed suffering great economic difficulties. One of the main problems is that, unlike their competitors who sell goods in euros, they sell their products in sterling. When does my hon. Friend expect those so-called advocates of farming on the Conservative Benches to realise that fact and plead the case that this country joins the euro to benefit their farming friends?
    Mr. Hanson: My hon. Friend will be aware of the Government's position on the euro. Unlike the Conservative party, we do not rule it out for the whole of the next Parliament. That is what farmers need to consider. They should examine the Opposition's policy on the euro and compare it with the Government's sensible approach.
    Mr. Richard Livsey:. My hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) apologises for his absence, but he is meeting President Clinton.
    Is the Minister aware of a survey at the Welsh dairy show that showed that a quarter of the hundreds of farmers who were questioned make no income at all from their dairy units and that most of them receive less than 15p a litre for their milk? Does he recognise that it is not possible to make a profit out of dairying if milk is sold for less than 20p a litre? Has he met the supermarkets,

    627
    the Dairy Trade Federation and the Department of Trade and Industry to do something about farmers getting a price that is at least above the cost of production?
    Mr. Hanson: I certainly am aware of the difficulties in the dairy industry. Like the hon. Gentleman and many of my right hon. and hon. Friends, I represent a rural area with many dairy farmers. The Government have examined the difficult issue of supermarkets and their performance, and a report has been published. I certainly will reconsider the representations that have been made, but farming incomes are a difficult matter. The Government are providing resources and implementing measures to help promote farm produce in Wales. That is what will help farmers in Wales and elsewhere.
    Mr. Nigel Evans: We hear what the Government say they are doing for farmers, but a liberty and livelihood march will take place on 18 March 2001, in which hundreds of thousands of farmers and those who support the countryside will make their views known. Many of them will come from all parts of Wales. Does the Minister begin to understand why they feel so angry and let down by his Government?
    Mr. Hanson: I take it that the hon. Gentleman is referring to the Hunting Bill. I am sure that he would not wish the Government to renege on their manifesto commitments. We have agreed to allow Members of Parliament a free vote on the Bill. I represent a rural area and there is a fox hunt in my constituency. I know what I am going to do on the day, and I trust that other hon. Members will do the same.
    Mr. Evans: The Government have reneged on many other measures in their manifesto, particularly the pledge that there would be no new taxes. Does the Minister not realise that farming is facing the worst crisis in living memory? People who live in less-favoured areas are forecast next year to earn £2,700; petrol taxes have increased by 34 per cent.; the number of young entrants into farming has dropped; and meat inspection charges, veterinary charges, disposal charges and monitoring charges have all increased under his Government. Is it not time that they started to prioritise farmers in Wales instead of focusing on the Hunting Bill, which will cost jobs in the countryside in Wales? Farmers in Wales are not asking for a special deal; they just want an equal deal. If the hon. Gentleman's Government will not give it, the Conservative Government will.
    Mr. Hanson: I said that £600 million of farming support in Wales this year was not an insignificant sum. We have abolished dairy hygiene charges and the Chancellor recently announced in the pre-Budget statement the abolition of the meat hygiene inspection charge. The Government are committed to giving Members of Parliament a free vote on hunting. The hon. Gentleman can live with his conscience; we will live with ours, and we will do what we want in our constituencies on that basis.

    Hospital Waiting Lists
    Mr. Graham Brady: What discussions he has had with the First Secretary
    628
    and the Welsh Health Secretary with regard to the number of people currently waiting more than 18 months for an operation at a hospital in Wales who live in England. [142007]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. David Hanson): The Secretary of State and I would not normally discuss with Assembly Health Secretaries the issue of patients living in England who are waiting for operations in hospitals in Wales, as they are not included in Welsh waiting list figures. These are the responsibility of health authorities in England. However, we are aware that some English residents are admitted to hospitals in Wales, and colleagues at the Department of Health have advised us that the most recent statistics show that the number currently waiting over 18 months is nil.
    Mr. Brady: I am amazed by the Minister's answer. He clearly ducked the question. He must be aware, as I am, that in March 1997 1,400 people had waited more than 18 months for operations. [Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman. Members on the Government Benches must be quiet.
    Mr. Brady: In March 1997, 1,400 patients had been waiting more than 18 months for in-patient treatment in Wales, but now there are more than 5,000. Under the Government, the waiting lists have increased by 257 per cent. What does he intend to do about that? Surely he must accept that he cannot continue to bat it away and try to avoid the issue.
    Mr. Hanson: It seems to me that the hon. Gentleman has not read his own question, which asked how many people who live in England and are serviced by hospitals in Wales have waited more than 18 months. The answer to that question is nil. If he wants to talk about Welsh hospital waiting lists, I can tell him that a Conservative Government would, as a result of their proposed tax cuts, reduce the £1.35 billion extra that is being provided over the next three years. I noticed that he did not mention the 9 per cent. increase in his own health authority's funding for this year.
    Mr. Huw Edwards: Does my hon. Friend agree that waiting lists in Wales are being addressed by the investment that the Government are putting into new hospital provision? In the past two years, I have attended the opening of a brand new community hospital in Chepstow and a new day surgery unit at Abergavenny, and I look forward to attending the opening of the new community hospital in Monmouth in the next couple of years.
    Mr. Hanson: My hon. Friend puts his finger on it. The difference between the Government and the Opposition is that we deliver hospitals on the ground. Chepstow hospital and the potential new development in the Monmouth constituency are important investments in health care. The £1.35 billion extra that the Government have committed to health care in Wales is threatened by the policies of the Conservative party.
    Mr. Brady: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I want to give notice that, in view of the Minister's unsatisfactory

    629
    response to my question and the fact that he did not even mention the 257 per cent. increase in waiting lists for in-patient operations in Wales, I intend to raise this matter on the Adjournment.

    Petrol Prices
    Mr. James Gray: What recent representations he has received with regard to the cost of petrol in Wales. [142008]
    The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Paul Murphy): I have received representations on the cost of petrol in Wales from a range of organisations and individuals.
    Mr. Gray: May I ask the Minister a simple, factual question, which I hope is incapable of producing spin or waffle? What was the average price of a gallon of petrol in rural Wales in 1997, and what is the price today?
    Mr. Murphy: I am trying to work out the rate for a gallon of petrol from the price per litre, but it is about 82p to 90p depending on where in rural Wales one buys it.
    Hon. Members: Answer the question.
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Mr. Simon Thomas: Following the point made by the Secretary of State, may I ask him about the double tax that people in rural Wales are paying on petrol?
    Mr. Gray: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I asked the Secretary of State for the price of petrol in 1997. I intend to raise this matter on the Adjournment.
    Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is using the wrong wording. Perhaps he should have a word with one of his hon. Friends who can give him the proper wording.
    Mr. Thomas: Further to the point that the Secretary of State made about the price of petrol in rural areas, will he comment on the double tax that many people in those areas are paying? They are paying not only the tax that the Government impose, but the tax that the petrol companies impose for transporting petrol those distances. Rural garages buy their petrol wholesale at a more expensive price than urban garages sell it for. What can he do to address that problem, so that people in rural areas pay a similar price for their petrol to those in urban areas?
    Mr. Murphy: The hon. Gentleman is aware that in the last pre-Budget report my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer introduced a number of measures relating to the cost of petrol and diesel and vehicle excise duties. As a result of the combination of those two measures, there has been a cut of 8p a litre in diesel for hauliers and 4p a litre in petrol for car users. That applies in both urban and rural areas, so it is good news for the people of Wales.

    National Health Service
    Mr. Huw Edwards: When he intends to meet the First Secretary in the National Assembly to discuss the national health service in Wales. [142011]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. David Hanson): The Secretary of State and I have regular meetings with the National Assembly First Secretary to discuss health services in Wales.
    Mr. Edwards: When my hon. Friend meets the Health Minister in Wales, will he discuss the modernisation of the NHS as it will apply to Wales, especially the role of the private practice undertaken by NHS consultants? Does he agree that NHS consultants should be rewarded for working exclusively for the NHS?
    Mr. Hanson: My hon. Friend makes valuable points and I am sure that he will welcome the health care and modernisation Bill, which will be published shortly. It will apply to England and Wales and fulfil the Government's duty to modernise the NHS.

  The Prime Minister was asked—
  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Ql. [141781] Mr. Damian Green: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 13 December.
    The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. John Prescott): I have been asked to reply. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is with President Clinton in Northern Ireland. I am sure that the House will join me in hoping that the visit is successful and in welcoming the President, once again, to the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Green: The Deputy Prime Minister will be concerned about newspaper reports quoting nurses at the William Harvey hospital in my constituency who say that staff shortages are putting patients' lives at risk today. I would not expect the right hon. Gentleman to know about or to comment on local services, but nationally, can he tell the House what percentage of the new nurses recruited in the past 12 months are now working full time?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: I do not think that we should take any lectures on this. We have set a target of 20,000 nurses, and 16,000 more nurses are now working in our health service. That is the answer for those who believe in the NHS. Our priority for the health service is 16,000 more nurses and 5,000 more doctors.
    Judy Mallaber: I welcome my right hon. Friend's personal commitment to the coalfield areas and ask him to turn his attention to the problems of the textile and clothing industry in those areas. In particular, will he look at the 2,500 job losses in the east midlands, including Amber Valley, which will result from the

    631
    sell-off of the clothing division of Coats Viyella and see what urgent action can be taken to find new jobs for those tragically facing redundancy just before Christmas?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: This is a matter of considerable concern. As my hon. Friend knows, the taskforce is looking at the problem that she has mentioned. I should point out that the stability in our economy should be welcomed by the textile industry and any industries involved in investment. I hope that the taskforce will be able to offer some encouragement and help for that problem.
    Mrs. Angela Browning: The Government have set five economic tests for joining the euro. What are they?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: I did not hear exactly what the hon. Lady said—[Interruption.] She spoke quickly. If she asked about the tests for joining the euro, I can tell her that we have made that absolutely clear. There will be an economic test on the convertibility of European currencies and there will be a test on the effect the euro will have on our investment and our economy. Those are the conditions that we have laid down and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will address the matter soon after we win the next election.
    Mrs. Browning: I will speak more slowly because we are looking for a substantive answer from the Deputy Prime Minister. He has a folder in his hand and, if he does not know the answer by heart, can he now answer questions that other Ministers have resisted? The Government say that the five economic tests are measurable and independent. Can he report progress on each of them to the House? Are we achieving convergence with the economies of the EU on each of the tests?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: We have always made our view clear to the House—my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made it absolutely clear. When he made some assessments a few months ago, he did not feel that we could meet the conditions. He said that he would report to the House after the next election and give an assessment of the tests, which include financial services and employment.
    Mrs. Browning: Is it not clear from the Deputy Prime Minister's answer that not only are the Government not monitoring the convergence criteria, five of which were set by the Chancellor, but they have failed to produce reports that put that information before the House? The Deputy Prime Minister has failed again today to answer that question. Is it not the reality that there are not five economic tests but one political test—whether the Government can get away with it? Will they not do anything to scrap the pound, whether it means setting meaningless tests, fiddling a referendum, or a conspiracy of silence at the next general election?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: I remind the hon. Lady that those tests will again be measured and considered by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, and will be brought
    632
    to the House. I am bound to say that her history on these European issues has not been helpful either to her own side or to the European argument.
    Mr. Paul Marsden: I thank my right hon. Friend for visiting Shrewsbury yesterday to see for himself the severe flooding that has hit the town. In total this year, businesses and homes have been flooded out six times. I urge him to cut through the red tape and to help Shrewsbury to find the investment that is needed for a new flood defence scheme.
    The Deputy Prime Minister: The whole House will identify with the concerns of people who have suffered bad experiences from floods during the past few months or so. I know that Members on both sides of the House have visited those areas and offered sympathy on behalf of all of us. In reality, what we have to do is much more about investment in flooding. There has been increased investment in flooding both by the previous Administration and by this Government. Indeed, the £51 million that I announced is designed to bring forward some of those flood schemes.
    With regard to people who are suffering at present from the floods, we have set up bodies in those areas to see how we can further help them. There will be a statement by the Environment Agency on the consequences of the floods. The House will then be able to debate the lessons and to see exactly what we can do about them.
    Mr. A. J. Beith: May I ask the Deputy Prime Minister not a test question, but a question to which millions of travellers would like the answer? By what date does he expect the frequency, punctuality and timetable that existed before the Hatfield crash to be in operation again on our rail system?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: Everyone is concerned about that matter. Indeed, in my discussions with Railtrack I have made it clear that we want the timetable to be back as quickly as possible, but I recognise the massive amount of work involved in checking all the lines; it is a considerable job. A tremendous amount of re-railing is needed—300-odd miles, with about 600 cross-over points—which creates real problems.
    Our concern was to ensure that the Strategic Rail Authority and all those who are involved—the train companies and Railtrack—got a common programme. I asked for a national recovery programme some weeks ago. Railtrack did not meet the timetable the first time. The new management has now produced the rail recovery programme.
    I have made it clear to those in management that I expect the rail recovery programme to set dates, times and sustainable timetables. Under those circumstances, I give them until January, as does the Prime Minister, to see how far they go in delivering—but let me be clear. The problem is so great—there has been massive disinvestment over decades—that they have said in their recovery programme it will possibly be Easter time before they complete the programme and are back to normal service.
    Mr. Beith: Although much of the chaos results from the fragmentation and mess of the Tory privatisation,

    633
    since we cannot have a date, can we know who is in charge, given that there are almost daily ministerial meetings and summits through which the Government acknowledge that they must take on some responsibility? What is the role of the Strategic Rail Authority in sorting all this out? Is it a responsibility that will stay with the Deputy Prime Minister's Department, or is a consequence of all this that the Department of Transport will be floated off again, and these responsibilities with it? Many people are suffering rail journeys twice as long as they used to experience; the service is extremely unpredictable. What will be done?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman was not listening to my reply. I gave a date. I said that the recovery programme expected that we would be back to normal service by the Easter period—and the timetables; it is all identified in the recovery programme. It will be impossible to get a sustainable timetable if we do not have a recovery period for all the work that has to be done on the track, and it is considerable.
    We have asked the Strategic Rail Authority, which is now in being after the House passed the legislation—no thanks to the opposition either of the Liberals or—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] For whatever reason, they delayed the legislation dealing with the railways. The Strategic Rail Authority will produce a strategic plan at the end of January, setting out dates and times. It will make for a more modern railway, but it should be recognised that privatisation was a botched job, to say the least, and we are trying to clear up the mess.
    Ms Margaret Moran: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the massive investment and effort that has been put in over the past two years by central and local government and the work force at Vauxhall, Luton to secure the future of that plant? Does he understand the anger of the work force and the local community at the slap in the face, just before the festive season, of the announcement by General Motors of the closure of that car plant? Will he join me in making representations to General Motors at the highest level to ensure that the company takes full responsibility for ensuring the financial future of the families affected, the work force and the local community?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: The whole House will agree with my hon. Friend. It is a tragic day for the workers who received that information during the past 24 hours. The House will also agree that it is a great pity that they were not informed earlier. Later today, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry will make a statement on the matter and hon. Members will be able to question him about the details. As we showed at Longbridge, the Government are prepared to intervene where they can to help in these matters. In response to the situation at Rover, we established a taskforce and a regional development agency, which, I might add, the Opposition would abolish if they were ever elected. Those bodies played a major part in addressing the problems in the midlands. I am sure that, once again, they will have a role to play in my hon. Friend's constituency, but we shall have to wait for the statement from my right hon. Friend.
    Mr. James Gray: The nation greatly enjoyed the Prime Minister on television last night. Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree with his right hon. Friend, as was widely reported this morning, that life on the railways now is hell, or does he agree with his noble Friend Lord Macdonald who, echoing Lord Callaghan's famous remarks, said that there is no crisis on the railways? Which of them is right?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman should know from his membership of the Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs more than most hon. Members do about the incompetence in the industry. My right hon. Friend Lord Macdonald made it clear that there was a crisis in investment and a crisis in management. Anyone who looks at the tape of that interview will find that it is not a proper representation—[Interruption.] The New Statesman is quite famous for changing the character of what was intended or meant in order to make a headline. One can check that, but at the end of the day it is a bit much coming from a member of the party that was in government, established Railtrack and caused the ruddy mess. The crisis in our rail industry came from the privatisation of Railtrack and the rail industry by the previous Administration.
    Mr. Barry Gardiner: The Deputy Prime Minister is aware that the weapon of terror is used not exclusively against sovereign states but sometimes by them. I know that he will be aware of the massacre of 29 Tamils at the Bindunuwewa detention camp in Sri Lanka. Does my right hon. Friend agree with the centre for human rights and development that the massacre was co-ordinated and carried out with the complicity of the local Sri Lankan police? Will he assure my Tamil constituent whose family suffered in this dreadful action that Britain will give no support to terrorism, from whatever source?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: Everyone in the House will be concerned at the acts of terrorism carried out by the Tamil groups, and we offer our sympathy to all who have suffered the consequences. I can say on behalf of the Government and the whole House that we condemn any such terrorism.
    Mr. Gerald Howarth: Given that only five of the 16 Bills in the Queen's Speech apply to the whole of the United Kingdom, what does the Deputy Prime Minister think that voters of England and Wales will feel when they see Scottish Members trooping through the Lobby to vote on matters that relate exclusively to England and Wales and over which he and I have no reciprocal rights in Scotland? Does he agree that, pending a proper constitutional resolution to the problem, all Scottish Members should follow the honourable example of the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) and take a vow of abstinence, starting with the Hunting Bill on Monday?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: The issues surrounding two-tier government concern everyone in the House. They did not seem to concern the previous Administration when it came to Northern Ireland, and in opposition we supported

    635
    their initiative in that respect. The hon. Gentleman's views are well known, and these controversial matters will continue to be debated in the House.
    The view that I have always held is that devolution for Scotland and Wales will lead the way to further decentralisation in the United Kingdom, in the form of regional government. Others no doubt have different views, but we are consulting on the matter. The point is that we believe in decentralisation because we saw the damage brought about by a highly centralised Thatcher Government. A decentralised form of government will bring decisions nearer to the people of this country.
    Mr. Bill Michie: Ever since the time of Adam, local government has complained about the amount of central Government funding for local services. Will my right hon. Friend, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, the Cabinet and representatives of local government sit around a table in the near future and thrash out a system that is understandable and which targets money so that it goes where it is needed?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: Matters of local finance have always caused considerable controversy, as the poll tax and other matters have shown. It is a matter of record that the amount given in grant by this Government has risen this year by 6.7 per cent., or £2.8 billion. In the four years since 1997–98, central Government grant to local government has gone up by 13.6 per cent. in real terms. That compares with a cut of 6.9 per cent. in the previous four years. However it is measured, the Government have a very good record when it comes to the resources and priority given to local government. We have secured real-terms increases, not the real-terms reduction that was the record of the previous Administration.
    I share my hon. Friend's concern about local government finance, and that is why we have published a Green Paper on the subject. We are now consulting on it, and will return to the House with our conclusions.
    Mrs. Angela Browning: Perhaps I can ask the Deputy Prime Minister a question that he might be able to answer. He has agreed with Lord Macdonald and admitted that there is crisis in the railway industry. He protests that he is merely clearing up the mess, but is not it the case, after four years of this Government, that we have a rail system in which 10,000 trains run late, the bill to industry in the past two years has amounted to billions of pounds, this year's Christmas post is in turmoil, and it takes passengers nine hours to get from Nottingham to London?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: It is a bit of a cheek for the hon. Lady to come here and talk about the railway industry in that way, given that Conservative Front Benchers have disowned the way in which it was privatised. The industry's organisation is wrong—the chief executive of Railtrack has said that it has the worst kind of organisation. The right hon. Lady therefore has a bit of cheek to stand up and criticise what is going on.
    The record shows that the Government are trying to get the rail service back on line: 93 per cent. of London commuter services are running, and 78 per cent. of inter-city services and 96 per cent. of other services are running. Punctuality has increased and, although it is not
    636
    as good as it should be, the improvement must be seen against the background of the problems faced by Railtrack. It is not enough, however, and I have to make sure that the improvements and changes advocated by the Strategic Rail Authority, and implemented and discussed by the rest of the industry, will be sufficient to bring back normal service to Britain's railways.
    Mrs. Browning: I wonder whether the Deputy Prime Minister could move on to another crisis. Does he agree with the Prime Minister that there will be a crisis in the national health service this winter?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: He did not say that, just as Lord Macdonald did not say that there was no crisis in the rail industry. My right hon. Friend said that there are difficulties and that the Government are putting extra resources into the NHS to resolve them. As I understand it, more than 90 per cent. of health trusts have already stated that, because of those extra resources, they are better fitted to deal with problems this winter.
    The Opposition are attempting to make the problem sound worse than it is. We have provided more nurses, more doctors, and more resources. We are beginning to turn round a health service that was our creation, but which the Opposition have, in the past, opposed.
    Mrs. Browning: If the Deputy Prime Minister will not accept that there is a crisis, will he listen to the words of a doctor? Dr. Stuart Withington, the director of intensive care at the Royal London hospital has said:
    We are seeing crisis every day in intensive care, cancelled operations, refused emergency admissions, non-clinical transfers to other units. It is just a battle zone every day.
    The Government have been in power for four years, and there is a crisis in transport, a crisis in health and a crisis in the police; and the Department for Education and Employment is realising that there will be a crisis in teacher recruitment very shortly.
    The Government were elected saying that things could only get better, yet they have plunged our public services into crisis. Has not this just been a long, sorry story of all spin and no delivery?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: Either the hon. Lady is ignorant of the facts, which clearly shows from her question, or perhaps this is a case of bad judgment on her part. When one looks at her history and past statements, one sees that she worked as a Minister at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in the previous Government during the BSE crisis, and was named in the Phillips report and got the judgment wrong. She said that the minimum wage was the kiss of death to employment, but the number of jobs has gone up in her constituency and 1 million more people are back in work. The hon. Lady was also the campaign manager for the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood). Her judgment is wrong, not the facts.
    Mr. Andy King: In the spirit of Christmas, will my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister make my constituents in Rugby even happier by

    637
    announcing that he will provide the extra money for the western relief road that the Tories failed to deliver in 18 years?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: In the spirit of Christmas, I can announce that tomorrow £8.8 billion will be made available for local transport plans, out of the £180 billion investment planned for the next 10 years—far beyond any amount given by the previous Government. The local transport plans will cover light rail systems, road systems and the bus and rail industries. My hon. Friend must wait until tomorrow for the spirit of Christmas, but I do not think that he will be disappointed.
    Mr. Andrew Stunell: Is the Deputy Prime Minister aware that the National Rail Enquiry Bureau has been giving false information about the running of trains on the west coast main line between Stockport and London for the past two weeks? Is he aware that the bureau refused to put that information right until it had been notified by the Association of Train Operating Companies, even though it knew that the information was wrong? Does he share the anger of my constituents not only that it takes four hours to get to London, but that it takes two weeks to get information to the National Rail Enquiry Bureau?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: I have sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's point. Since the whole terrible business started after the Hatfield tragedy, we have constantly sought information from Railtrack on these matters. Looking carefully at the problems, one realises that, if one wants a reliable timetable, it is crucial to have a national recovery programme. The difficulty facing some of the train companies was that, when they set their timetables, they found that further examination of the track brought more train restrictions. It is impossible to maintain a sustainable timetable on those grounds.
    Last week, we were given the national recovery programme. A sustainable programme is now planned: one from before Christmas up to the new year, and then, it is hoped, from the new year to the spring period, when the national recovery work will be completed and there will be a proper timetable. I am pushing very hard, as is Lord Macdonald, to make sure that a better timetable with better information is produced. But we must keep our eye on the ball and make sure that the recovery programme is completed.
    As I have said before, if Railtrack is unable to deliver its national recovery programme, that will be a comment on the abilities of the new management. I support them; I want recovery—it is their promise and it is for them to deliver.
    Maria Eagle: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the development of the Allerton bus and rail interchange in my south Liverpool constituency will be an important part of the on-going regeneration of the area? Tomorrow morning, when he hands out his Christmas presents as he makes his announcement about transport investment, will he consider the claims of my south Liverpool constituency and the redevelopment of the Allerton bus and rail interchange?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: I do not want to appear to be too much like Santa Claus—or I should be inviting
    638
    everyone to ask what will be in tomorrow's statement. However, the statement is a good one; it is about improving transport. It does of course consider Merseyside—as it does every region in the country; hon. Members can wait for that until tomorrow.
    Mr. Speaker: Mr. John Butterfill—not here.
    Hon. Members: Oh!
    Mr. Paul Tyler: Does the Deputy Prime Minister realise that the main line to the south-west is completely out of action yet again? London is in effect cut off from the south-west. Does he accept that his comments about the lack of investment in the rail infrastructure over many years and the failure to keep the Victorian engineering works throughout the country up to date—especially in the south-west—show that there has been a complete failure under successive Governments? Does he regret the fact that his party, in opposition, failed to stop the sell-off of Railtrack and failed to make sure that we could keep Railtrack under public control by simply ensuring that, if a Labour Government were elected, they would bring the company back into public control with a bond system?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: The reality was that public sector industry—especially British Rail—had been denied resources for a number of decades. I made that point as constantly when I was in opposition as I do in government. Let me be clear that considerable changes were required in the long-term financing of rail. At least I was able to make a happy agreement with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor to raise that £180 billion; what that has to do is guarantee long-term investment. The two or three-year Treasury rule was no good for our public sector capital investment.
    Some parts of the main line to the south-west are still single line running; that is wholly unacceptable for a main line system. That is a reflection of the inadequate money—inadequate capital. I have come up with a formula based on the business that I inherited—Railtrack, a privatised railway concern. That will mean that long-term investment is found and will improve the quality of our railway.
    I realise that the Transport Sub-Committee has made some comments about Railtrack today. We shall take them into account. However, we have to get on with the job; one part of that is ensuring that we get the resources—we have done that.
    Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: Did my right hon. Friend watch the BBC "Sports Review of the Year" on Sunday, which featured my constituents Jason Queally and Jeanette Brakewell—both of whom were Olympic medallists? Was my right hon. Friend as disappointed as I was that Tanni Grey-Thompson, also an Olympic medallist, was unable to collect her award with the other winners because nobody had thought to provide a ramp for her wheelchair? Is that not a lesson to us all that we must press ahead at full speed with the

    639
    implementation of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 to put a stop to such insulting treatment of one section of society?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: The whole House will be concerned that people were unable to receive their awards for that reason. Our Disability Rights Commission exists to correct it. In several policy matters—I know about those in transport—we are meeting requirements under the legislation to ensure that access is a right and is available to everyone. The House will want to express its sorrow that those people could not accept their awards and I hope that, at some point in the future, arrangements will be made so that they can enjoy them.
    Mr. John Burnett: Many of my constituents in Torridge and West Devon, like many people in the country, are having their lives devastated by repeated flooding of their homes and businesses. Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree that the
    640
    formula for apportioning the flood defence budget seriously disadvantages rural areas? Weight is given to housing density twice over; once is fair but twice is unfair. Will the Deputy Prime Minister undertake to review the formula immediately to ensure that a fair proportion of the flood defence funding goes to our rural towns and villages?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman makes a sound point, which was also made in our discussions about what we could do about the floods a few weeks ago. It is connected with the arguments and judgments made by the Treasury and others about cost benefit, which I felt was inadequate because it did not take into account how often certain people are affected by flooding. This is not just about how many houses are involved but about how frequent flooding is, and I do not think that the present cost benefit analysis allows for that. I have ordered an inquiry, and the Environment Agency and others will make a report, so I hope that we will be able to deal with the problem.

  Vauxhall (Luton)
  3.31 pm
  The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Stephen Byers): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall make a statement concerning yesterday's announcement by General Motors to end car production at its Vauxhall plant in Luton.
  As hon. Members will know, over recent months, General Motors has been conducting a worldwide review of its operations. The results of that review were announced yesterday. The decision in relation to Luton is a bitter blow, with the prospect of 2,000 jobs being lost by this time next year. Our efforts must be directed towards assisting the individuals affected, and the local community, through what will clearly be a difficult period.
  In this statement I shall outline the steps that the Government will take. But it is important that, before I do that, the House considers the reasons given by General Motors for its decision. The company has made it clear that this is part of a Europe-wide restructuring procedure, which will result in more than 5,000 job losses across Europe. General Motors has stated that the restructuring is a response to overcapacity in the car market and rapidly changing European market conditions, with lower sales than expected and a shift in customer preferences towards smaller vehicles.
  The announcement is part of an overall restructuring by General Motors, designed to reduce salaried employment levels by 10 per cent. in north America and Europe over the next 12 months—cutting 10,000 jobs worldwide. Despite yesterday's announcement, Vauxhall will remain an important manufacturer in the United Kingdom. It has confirmed that it will continue with its investment plans for a new van to be manufactured at Luton, and that planned production volumes for the project will he increased. That will secure more than 2,000 jobs.
  Ellesmere Port will continue to produce Astra cars and V6 engines, employing more than 4,000 people. Vauxhall also announced yesterday that a study is being made of the possibility of incorporating the next generation Vectra and turning the Ellesmere Port plant into a two-model "flex" plant. It is therefore clear that this is part of a worldwide restructuring by General Motors, resulting in job losses in north America and mainland Europe as well as in Luton.
  The challenge is to provide new job opportunities for the future to replace the jobs lost as a result of yesterday's decision. That is why yesterday I, with my right hon. Friend the Minister for Employment, Welfare to Work and Equal Opportunities, announced that the Government would take steps to help those affected and to strengthen the local economy.
  The Employment Service, working closely with Vauxhall, local authorities and other relevant bodies, will provide a package of advice and assistance to individual employees. The package will include rapid response units providing a personal service to help people find new jobs, an on-site job shop to offer vacancies, help with job applications and offer a fast-track benefits service, and retraining programmes that will offer guidance on further education and training opportunities.
  The rapid response units have a good record in finding new employment for people affected by major job losses. At Fujitsu, in County Durham, a rapid response unit
  642
  helped to ensure that about 94 per cent. of the work force found new jobs within 12 months. At Siemens, in north Tyneside, the Employment Service played a major role in helping about 90 per cent. of the work force find new employment.
  Taken together, the measures will ensure that Vauxhall employees are given the best opportunity for a secure future and that the effects on the local economy are reduced. Additionally, we have asked the regional development agency to take the lead in identifying the action necessary to support the local economy and the employment base. The RDA has already begun that task and, this afternoon, is meeting the local authority and other relevant organisations. It will also establish a planning partnership to identify the practical measures necessary to assist in economic regeneration and job creation.
  As a result of decisions taken by the Government, Luton is now part of our assisted areas map and, as such, qualifies for regional selective assistance. That will clearly be an enormous advantage in securing jobs in the future.
  Of particular concern must be the position of businesses that supply Vauxhall, for which special support will be necessary. The RDA will therefore help companies in the supply chain to diversify, to find new business and to minimise the impact on the wider local economy.
  It is clear that, at a time of globalisation, many sectors of our industry are going through major restructuring. In such circumstances, the Government's role has to be to provide economic stability, and that is exactly what the Government are doing. The underlying strengths of our economy are clear, as two sets of figures published today demonstrate. Today's labour market figures show that the employment level is 300,000 higher than at this time last year, and official figures published this morning show that the stock of foreign direct investment in the United Kingdom has increased by 21 per cent. in the past year, from £188 billion to £227 billion.
  I am, however, the first to acknowledge that the figures will be of little comfort for the thousands of workers in Luton. Many hon. Members will understand the sense of anger that they feel, particularly about the manner in which they learned of their fate. This will be a bleak Christmas for those affected by Vauxhall's decision, and we must do all that we can to help them through the difficult months ahead. By working together, I am confident that we will be able to meet the challenges of the next 12 months.
  Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for responding to our request for a statement on this matter and for giving me an advance sight of his proposals.
  The ending of car production by Vauxhall at Luton is indeed a terrible blow to the work force there, to supplying companies and to many of the other companies in Luton that depend on the buoyancy of the local economy. It is a particular blow that the massive redundancies were announced without warning just before Christmas. I agree with the Secretary of State that everything must be done to help those who are affected by the redundancies, including help to find jobs and, when necessary, to obtain retraining.

  643
  It is not, however, an isolated closure: it is part of a very damaging pattern of closures that has been accelerating in recent months. Ford has announced that it is ending car production at Dagenham, with the loss of thousands of jobs there. The Nissan plant in Sunderland is also threatened. During the Rover fiasco earlier this year, we saw how out of touch the Government had become with the motor industry and its problems.
  Of course there is an overcapacity problem in the motor industry. We all know about that, and the Government cannot cure that problem. However, the Government can cure their own tax and regulation policies. Since the general election, they have piled on layer upon layer of extra business taxes and regulations, which have particularly damaged manufacturing industry and undermined its success in difficult world markets. We warned the Secretary of State about that; we have been telling him about it for months, but he has done nothing about it and we are beginning to see the results of that complacency.
  The Secretary of State gave an employment figure for the economy as a whole. What he did not tell us is what is happening to manufacturing employment. Can he confirm that, since May 1997, manufacturing employment has fallen by 206,000, having risen under the previous Government? I am grateful to the House of Commons Library for providing me with that figure.
  Can the right hon. Gentleman explain why motor manufacturers such as Nissan, Toyota and BMW came to this country? They were attracted to Britain under the previous Government, but under the present Government, they have left or they are engaged in massive and damaging cost and employment reductions.
  Can the Secretary of State tell the House what he is doing, not to cure a problem after it has occurred, but to help the industry and prevent more closures in future? Specifically, where is the aid for Nissan in Sunderland that he promised months ago? The application is sitting on some desk in the European Commission. When is that aid to be paid to Nissan? Will we be faced with another catastrophe if that plant moves to France?
  Lastly, when will the Secretary of State start to roll back the tide of escalating taxation and regulations, which the CBI estimated will cost British industry an extra £32 billion over the life of this Parliament? Specifically, what will the Secretary of State tell the Chancellor of the Exchequer to do about the new energy tax that is to be paid by all businesses in the United Kingdom from 1 April—the so-called climate change levy? That will be particularly damaging to the motor industry, unless the industry relocates to another country that does not have the tax.
  Can the Secretary of State tell us at last what he will do, not to go on taxing and regulating British businesses and the motor industry, but to start to help those industries and all who work in them, to stop such catastrophes happening in the future?
  Mr. Byers: 1 regret that the right hon. Gentleman did not address the present difficulties being faced by workers at Luton. He paid lip service to that and spent much of his contribution speaking about issues that were not related to the announcement that General Motors made yesterday with regard to Luton.
  644
  General Motors made it clear yesterday why it was taking action in relation to Europe. It was because of overcapacity in the car market and, as the General Motors press notice stated,
  rapidly changing European market conditions
  with lower sales than expected. Those were the reasons given for the decision, which related to Europe. If the right hon. Gentleman cares to read the statement made by General Motors, he will see that it reflects exactly those points. It was a worldwide issue and it was being addressed by the worldwide review. It would have been interesting had the right hon. Gentleman dealt with the real history behind the decisions being taken by General Motors, because it is far more complicated than he would lead the House to believe.
  The right hon. Gentleman talks about more than £10 billion of burdens being imposed on business. What he does not tell the House is that that includes the right for people to have four weeks paid holiday a year as well as the national minimum wage. For most people, those are not red tape or administrative burdens but decent minimum standards for people in the workplace. The shadow Chancellor endorsed the national minimum wage without consulting his shadow Cabinet colleagues—many who sit on the Opposition Front Bench still disagree with the principle of a national minimum wage.
  The reality is that the tax burden—corporation tax—has been reduced for companies in the United Kingdom. The right hon. Gentleman talked about employment levels in manufacturing. He is right to point out that, to be precise, 206,000 manufacturing jobs have been lost since May 1997. He did not tell the House about the record under the Conservative Government when, on average, 150,000 manufacturing jobs were lost for each of the 19 years of Conservative rule.
  Economic stability will be the way in which we shall create the framework within which manufacturing can prosper—not turning the clock back 10 years to inflation at 10 per cent., interest rates at 15 per cent. and more than 1 million manufacturing jobs lost in one year as a result of the policies that the Conservative party pursued. We shall remain firm to our economic commitment of stability. In the medium and long terms, that is the only way to create the climate in Britain for more employment growth and prosperity in manufacturing.
  Ms Margaret Moran: I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement. Does he agree that now is not the time for political posturing, for tearing up workers' rights, as those on the Opposition Benches seem to advocate, or for returning to the economic and employment policies that caused such devastation to businesses and the economy in Luton during their term of office? Does he understand the anger felt by the work force and the community in Luton, and the need for an urgent response from the Government?
  I thank him for the package that he outlined and put in place so swiftly, and also for the responsiveness of this Government to our call for objective 2 and assisted area status funding, which will help those people who may be facing unemployment in Luton. Does he agree that, if General Motors feels that it has a right to close car plants,

  645
  it also has a responsibility to consult workers and to ensure that it takes full responsibility for their future livelihoods and for the regeneration of the local economy?
  Mr. Byers: I thank my hon. Friend for those comments. I am sure that the House has great respect for the way in which she and hon. Members with neighbouring constituencies are dealing with a difficult set of circumstances. She is right to point out that we have put in place measures to give Luton objective 2 status and ensured that our assisted area map applies to Luton, which was not the case, so that there are greater opportunities to lever new investment into the town and the surrounding area. I also understand—I referred to this in my statement—the anger that the workers must have felt about hearing their fate on a local radio news station. That is no way, at the beginning of the 21st century and in a spirit of partnership in the workplace, to treat dedicated and hard-working employees.
  What we need to do is look carefully at how the European works councils and the collective redundancies directives are operating to see whether they can be improved to ensure that we do not see a repeat of yesterday's events.
  Dr. Vincent Cable: May I add to the sympathy for the workers who have lost their jobs in these sad circumstances? There seems to be common ground between all participants in the debate about the peremptory and insensitive way in which the management have handled the matter. Has the episode in any way changed the Government's attitude towards the European directive on worker consultation, which they have hitherto resisted but which might have mitigated some of those effects?
  Does the Secretary of State see a common thread in the decision of four car companies to relocate production to the core euroland economies? Does he share the judgment of Nick Reilly at Vauxhall that the persistent and substantial overvaluation of the pound against the euro, although not decisive, was certainly a factor? Does he share the view that John Monks expressed yesterday at the Trades Union Congress that continued uncertainty over British participation in the euro is influencing long-term investment decisions? As there is continued uncertainty about Rover, will the Secretary of State give a progress report—if he has one—on the company's effort to secure a long-term global strategic partner for its operations?
  Mr. Byers: The information and consultation directive that is being discussed in Europe at present is flawed in a number of ways. As the House knows, the Government have concerns about the principle of subsidiarity and the fact that it is not respected in the directive in its current form. We are not convinced that the directive will work effectively in the United Kingdom. However, especially in the light of yesterday's announcement and the manner in which it was made, we accept that there is a need to look carefully at provisions that currently apply within the UK. That is why I mentioned the directives on collective redundancies and European works councils, which apply within the UK. We need to reflect on how they can be improved or, perhaps, on the need for us to come up with our own domestic arrangements. That will ensure that, in the spirit of partnership in the workplace—which, we believe, assists productivity—there is a better way of doing things.
  646
  On the single European currency, all that I can say is that yesterday's announcement by General Motors and Vauxhall made it clear that that was not a significant factor in their decision. When an announcement is made that affects 2,000 jobs in Luton, 3,000 jobs in mainland Europe and, I understand, 5,000 jobs in north America, it is clearly not a matter that relates to the single European currency. On the situation at MG Rover, I understand that it is still on course to meet the targets that it set when it took over from BMW.
  Mr. Kelvin Hopkins: May I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement and especially his assurances about measures to help workers who have lost their jobs to get new employment in the future? Hundreds of my constituents have been affected and are unemployed. This morning, I was outside the plant, where there were a lot of extremely angry people. Will my right hon. Friend condemn the company for the way in which the announcement was made, as it was leaked to the press before the workers and trade unions were told? Will he also condemn the decision itself, which is not justified? Two years ago, with the assistance of the Government, the trade unions, local Members of Parliament and the council, we got an agreement to keep production at Luton to bring the new car in. Only three months ago, an agreement with the trade unions was reached that was predicated on the new car. That is not going to happen now.
  I have two specific questions. The first is about the strength of the pound. The company studiously avoided reference to that in its statements. That is understandable, as it negotiated a deal with the trade unions that specifically mentioned the strength of the pound. The workers accepted a lower pay rise, predicated on the possibility of the pound depreciating. When that happened, they would have a higher pay rise. Although the company did not mention the strength of the pound, Nick Reilly, the chairman of the company, mentioned it on television last night. That may be factor, and we want to know which of those voices is the correct one.
  Secondly, there may be overcapacity in the car industry in the world, and even in Europe, but there is not overcapacity in Britain, because we are still net importers of car products. It is about time that we defended what remains of our car industry in Britain, because if we do not, it will all disappear, with terrible damage not just to employment and the balance of trade, but to Britain's economic future. Manufacturing matters and we should defend it.
  Mr. Byers: I understand the anger felt by the work force and by those Members of Parliament who were closely involved in securing the deal two years ago, which all felt would give the Luton plant a long-term future. That was the intention of the deal and, just six months ago, Vauxhall committed itself to a significant investment in Luton, which, once again, most people thought would secure the plant's future.
  Yesterday, Vauxhall said that the losses incurred in Europe in the third quarter of this year, running to $181 million, with even further losses projected in the final quarter of this year, were such that immediate steps had to be taken. As a result, it made yesterday's announcement affecting 5,000 jobs throughout Europe. It did not pray in aid the strength of the pound as a reason

  647
  for its decision on Luton. We will have a debate on the effect on manufacturing of not being within the eurozone and of the strength of the pound in relation to the single European currency, but today's statement on Vauxhall at Luton is not the time for that debate. When it is announced that jobs are to be lost in Belgium, Germany and north America, the pound and the single European currency are clearly not factors on this occasion.
  Car plants in the United Kingdom trade in Europe and, increasingly, globally. For example, Toyota in Swindon is looking to export an increasing number of its cars to north America. Therefore, the issue is not one of overcapacity in the United Kingdom. Those companies deal at a European level and are often organised at a European level, and they will look at the market in European terms and make a decision based on overcapacity in that market. That is the decision that has been taken by GM in relation to Vauxhall at Luton.
  Sir David Madel: This is terrible news for Luton, but equally terrible news for the adjacent towns of Houghton Regis and Dunstable. May I take it that the help that Luton will get will be applied to Houghton Regis and Dunstable as well?
  Does the Secretary of State agree that, first and foremost, the news should have been given to the work force by the president of General Motors Europe, not by whoever it was who leaked it to the BBC?
  The Secretary of State is aware of job losses and possible job losses in Dunstable and Houghton Regis at TRW Steering, BTR and Trico Products. We need to modernise our automotive base in south Bedfordshire. We need drastically to improve the infrastructure to make the area more attractive to new employers so that they will come and help us.
  I am sure that the Secretary of State will understand if I say, after battling for 30 years in the House to help Vauxhall, that this is a terribly sad day. If only the Luton plant could have had the new Corsa, it could have been a flexi-plant, which I sincerely hope Ellesmere Port will be and so be able to help in the employment of some of those who will lose their jobs.
  Mr. Byers: The hon. Gentleman makes an important and strong point about the wider implications of the announcement, not just for Luton, but for the surrounding towns and other areas throughout the United Kingdom. There are two ways in which we can address that. First, we need to ensure that individual employees who may be located outside Luton, in Dunstable or elsewhere in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, have the tailored advice and support that I mentioned in the statement.
  Secondly, we need to give clear help to the supply chain. Many companies and businesses in the hon. Gentleman's constituency will have been major suppliers to Vauxhall at Luton. We know the first tier suppliers and, with the agreement of Vauxhall, we shall contact them to ensure that they are given short-term help to diversify and help with retooling and reskilling, if that is appropriate. We have very much in mind the needs of the businesses in the supply chain and we shall do all that we can to assist them.
  There may well be a wider issue about how we can modernise the auto industry in south Bedfordshire, and I shall draw that aspect to the attention of the regional
  648
  development agency and the other partners who are drawing together the practical proposals on how we can move forward.
  Mr. Patrick Hall: Will my right hon. Friend take it from me that the feeling of shock and uncertainty is being experienced in Bedford and Kempston, as well as in Luton, Dunstable and other neighbouring areas? People are asking where the problem will lead and where it will end. Despite the welcome announcement, as I understand it, of an extra 1,000 jobs for the Vauxhall-IBC Vehicles plant in Luton, will my right hon. Friend do his best to address that feeling of uncertainty? In particular, when will a programme of effective action be prepared, published and implemented to support companies in the supply chain and underpin the local economy?
  Mr. Byers: That was one of the specific points made in the package of measures announced jointly yesterday by me and my right hon. Friend the Minister for Employment, Welfare to Work and Equal Opportunities. We are conscious of the vulnerable position into which many supply chain businesses will be put, often by cash-flow problems, which might hit them very quickly. The present situation involves a relatively slow run-down of production at Luton. The bulk of the jobs will be lost at about this time next year, so we have an opportunity to put in place some robust measures. I hope that those measures will overcome many of the difficulties and lift the uncertainty that must be felt by many people and businesses.
  I am conscious of the wider implications, which extend to areas such as the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Hall). The brief that we have given to the regional development agency states that although concentrated issues may need to be dealt with in Luton, the wider implications will also need to be addressed.
  Sir Nicholas Lyell: In seeking to alleviate the unhappy position of people whose jobs and businesses will be affected by the problems in Luton and in Bedfordshire more widely, will the right hon. Gentleman consult carefully with the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions? Will he also take note that infrastructure between the M1 and A1 in Bedfordshire is poor and ask for higher priority to be given to the roads programme to improve that infrastructure, so that businesses can build and develop?
  Mr. Byers: I have no doubt that infrastructure must be one of the key issues when the groups that we have established consider the measures necessary for the economic regeneration of the area. The right hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned difficulties in relation to the M1 and A1. I shall draw that point specifically to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister. As we consider the steps that are necessary to create further jobs and employment opportunities in the United Kingdom, the need for an infrastructure that can be responsive and meet the demands of business is becoming increasingly clear. I understand that my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister will make an announcement

  649
  tomorrow about the roads programme. I believe that economic growth and stability will be a key theme in that announcement.
  Mr. Tony Lloyd: My right hon. Friend's action in rapidly establishing practical steps to at least ameliorate the problem is welcome and is in sharp contrast with the outrageous behaviour of General Motors. Will that company now pick up any responsibility for the rescue package? It has an obligation to the work force. Also, my right hon. Friend mentioned information and consultation. It is obvious that General Motors has ridden roughshod over the natural rights that the Vauxhall work force should have had. He commented on the draft European Union directive, but will he reconsider the issue? It is clear, especially in comparison with other parts of Europe, that there is a huge lack in our law, which fails to protect British workers.
  Mr. Byers: Clearly, there will be discussions with General Motors about what contribution it can make to help with the regeneration of Luton and with the consequences of its decision.
  On the information and consultation directive, the Government's position is very clear. We believe that the directive is flawed and that it will not be applied in the United Kingdom in a way that will bring the benefits that some people have suggested. However, my hon. Friend makes an important point, which we need to consider, namely, how to improve our procedures in such a situation. The Government believe that, rather than looking at what may come out of Europe, it would be far better to examine what we can do in our domestic arrangements. That means looking closely at the collective redundancy situation and the European works council provisions. By doing so, and perhaps altering them to reflect the United Kingdom's national position, we will be in a far stronger position to deal with the concerns that were raised by my hon. Friend—but address them we will. That is why we intend to review those two areas.
  Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: In Europe during the last quarter, GM lost $181 million. Such losses are not sustainable in the long term. A good part of those losses were incurred outside the United Kingdom, which demonstrates that the decision has little or nothing to with the weakness of the euro, and is not the fault of the work force, who have become increasingly productive—they produce good quality goods and have been extraordinarily flexible in their work practices. I trust that the Secretary of State will endorse those points.
  During the past year and a half, I have talked to representatives of the manufacturing industry with greater frequency. It has become clear that they find that their costs are increasing dramatically. That is why inward investment in manufacturing is going down and national investment in manufacturing is going down—or, at least, it is not increasing at the rate that it has maintained in the past. The so-called environmental taxes, which are being imposed by the Government, are one reason for that. I say "so-called" because they have little to do with the environment and a lot to do with taxation. The non-wage costs of employing people is another factor. I ask the Secretary of State, in a non-party political way, to examine the costs of manufacturing and the costs of
  650
  employing people. If we could reduce them, we could reverse the trends in this country involving a decline in inward investment and a decline in investment in manufacturing.
  Mr. Byers: I agreed with the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, about the work force at Luton. There is no doubt that they have been flexible and hard working and that productivity has improved as a result. Yesterday's announcement is no reflection on the commitment and motivation of the work force at Luton. Other factors came into play. As I said, General Motors conducted a worldwide review.
  I regret, however, that the hon. Gentleman had to move into party-political mode in relation to costs. Examining yesterday's announcement makes it clear why General Motors moved to close car production at Luton—its decision was based on overcapacity and on models not selling as well as it expected them to do.
  It is worth reflecting on the fact that if the situation in the United Kingdom was as bleak as the hon. Gentleman portrayed, why are record levels of investment coming into the United Kingdom—this morning's figures show that in terms of direct foreign investment—and why have we got a million more people in work now than there were when we took office in May 1997?
  Mr. Andrew Miller: I informed my hon. Friends the Members for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins) and for Luton, South (Ms Moran) and those Opposition Members who represent seats in that area of the calls that I have received this morning from my constituents, who send their heart-felt sympathy to people in the Luton area. My constituents have known mass unemployment.
  What discussions is my right hon. Friend having with his opposite numbers in other European countries to address the serious problem of overcapacity in Europe and elsewhere? On a more local level, is he aware that, unlike the rest of mainland Europe, all interplant transfers by GM in the UK go by road, not rail. Will he urge the Deputy Prime Minister to lean on rail companies to encourage them to put a decent deal together so that we can lower the cost of interplant transfers?
  Mr. Byers: Those issues are discussed at the Industry Council of the European Commission, and no doubt they will be discussed when it next meets.
  I am interested by what my hon. Friend said about ways of reducing costs. I was aware of GM's policy of using road rather than rail, and there may well be merits in drawing that to the attention of the rail companies to see whether a deal can be put together.
  I know that my hon. Friend is especially concerned about the implications that the announcement may have for Ellesmere Port. He will know that Nick Reilly in particular has made strong and supportive statements about the position there. I am sure we are all pleased that Ellesmere Port at least has not been affected by yesterday's announcement. We must find ways of strengthening the plant's position, so that it can go from strength to strength in the future.
  Mr. Peter Lilley: Hundreds of my constituents who were employed by Vauxhall or its

  651
  suppliers are deeply shocked by this body blow. Their shock is compounded by the fact that, despite rumblings in the past about the possibility of such a decision, the Government seem once again to have been taken unawares.
  Is the Secretary of State aware of the system of contingency planning that I established when I held his job, to prepare for and if possible avert problems of this kind? Will he tell us what discussions were held with Vauxhall about the impending decision, and when they were held? Will he also tell us what plans he has—if this sad decision is irrevocable—to expedite planning procedures on the site and the land around it, to ensure that that land is made free for the generation of jobs in the area to create work for those who have been displaced?
  Mr. Byers: The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point about planning procedures. I shall ask the groups that have now been set up to look closely at the question of regeneration and job creation opportunities.
  The right hon. Gentleman asked about mechanisms and procedures in the Department. We announced our package within five minutes of Vauxhall's making its announcement.
  Barbara Follett: I thank my right hon. Friend for his speedy response to this terrible situation, which has affected hundreds of workers in my constituency, and will affect many firms in Stevenage and elsewhere in Hertfordshire. Will he do all he can to ensure that the remaining van and jeep production at the Luton plant is secured for the future, and that in future Vauxhall will take its workers into its confidence?
  Mr. Byers: Yesterday's announcement included a positive commitment to confirming and maintaining Vauxhall's earlier decision to invest in the new van facility at Luton. We must obviously ensure that it remains true to that statement, but I have no doubt that, having reviewed the position in considerable detail and having now made a decision, it will do so.
  I understand my hon. Friend's concern. No doubt many individuals, families and communities in Stevenage and, indeed, throughout Hertfordshire and Bedfordshire, will be affected by yesterday's announcement. What we as a Government must do is work alongside those people to take them through what will a difficult and painful period of change. I have no doubt that—although it will be a difficult time—because of the economic climate that we have been able to create in the United Kingdom, we are in a far stronger position to deal with this body blow than we would have been five or 10 years ago.
  Mr. John Redwood: Why will the Secretary of State not accept that we are seeing factory closure after factory closure and job loss after job loss throughout British manufacturing? There is a crisis in manufacturing in this country. The Government are over-regulating: they are taxing and regulating industry to death. Why will the Secretary of State not take some responsibility? Why will he not make it cheaper to make things in Britain? Why does he show such persistent callous indifference to the manufacturing crisis that he and his colleagues are creating?
  Mr. Byers: I welcome the right hon. Gentleman back to Department of Trade and Industry issues. He last had
  652
  enough time to attend such a debate when he thought that Rover was going to collapse with the loss of 8,000 jobs. However, he was absent when I made the statement in the House that that was not the case. He is like a vampire at the blood bank—he appears if he thinks that there is a difficulty for British manufacturing.
  If the right hon. Gentleman reads yesterday's statement by General Motors, he will see that none of the issues to which he referred is relevant. Redundancies were announced in Germany and north America, a region that he holds up as a good example. In reality, 10,000 jobs are being lost at General Motors worldwide. That has nothing to do with the issues that he raised. The sooner that he begins to talk about what we can do for individuals who are affected by the decision, the sooner he will have more respect, certainly from Labour Members.
  Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: My right hon. Friend will know that the knock-on consequences of closures in the motor industry can be devastating for smaller and isolated communities. The recent announcement of the closure of Johnson Controls, a car seat manufacturer, in Silloth in my constituency is causing the death of the community and town. Can the Department of Trade and Industry establish a unit to look specifically at small and isolated communities that have little chance of attracting industry and replacing jobs, because otherwise the long-term prospects for such communities are dire?
  Mr. Byers: My hon. Friend makes an important point about the vulnerability of communities that are based on one or two types of production. A diversified economy gives a community the strength to deal with such announcements, but it is very vulnerable if it is committed to one employer. We need to consider how we can assist those communities. The idea that my hon. Friend advances of having a unit or group of people to examine ways to help areas diversify into growing sectors of the future will be a useful and practical step for the Government to take.
  Mr. Michael Jack: In the light of the Secretary of State's surprise at having to make today's sad announcement, what steps will he take to improve the way in which his Department monitors the reaction in the motor industry and other vulnerable sectors to the tax and cost increase factors that must have led to the decision by General Motors? Did he receive, at any time in the past 12 months, an approach by General Motors about state aid so that car production could remain at Luton?
  Mr. Byers: In relation to the right hon. Gentleman's final question, the answer is no. My Department monitors the situation in the motor industry, as it does in many others.
  Mr. Harry Barnes: This is a very important statement for the workers at Vauxhall who have lost their jobs and for Members of Parliament in the Luton area and elsewhere who are able to cross-examine the Secretary of State on the matter. There have been job losses in other firms such as Biwater in my constituency and Coats Viyella in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Judy Mallaber), and it is a pity that we have not had an opportunity to ask similar

  653
  questions. In fact, this is the first time since the problem emerged in the summer that I have had a chance to question the Secretary of State in this Chamber.
  On Vauxhall, will the Secretary of State explain in more detail the regional selective assistance that is to be provided to the Luton area and whether it will be available to areas in the east midlands that are suffering in a similar way?
  Mr. Byers: Regional selective assistance is available for Luton because of the changes that we have introduced to the assisted areas map, which is one criteria that needs to be satisfied before such assistance is made available. Some areas in the east midlands are on the new map. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman wrote to me the other day about two of his constituents in Clay Cross who are trying to establish a new business. As it is now in an assisted area, they could qualify for regional selective assistance.
  Mr. Ian Bruce: The Secretary of State was right to condemn the fact that the news was leaked. Will he investigate a report that I heard this morning about the leak coming from the Department of Trade and Industry after it was told the news on Monday? I hope he will take that matter seriously.
  My main question is on the role that was played by the rip-off Britain campaign, in which the right hon. Gentleman's Department successfully attacked the motor industry and caused it to bring down prices. How has that affected the motor industry and the Vauxhall announcement?
  Mr. Byers: The media will know where the leak came from, and they will say that it was not from the Department of Trade and Industry. On the substantive point about the price of new cars in the United Kingdom, a Competition Commission inquiry into that matter produced a clear report and we accepted its recommendations. Having had such clear recommendations from the Competition Commission, it would have been a terrible folly to ignore its precise findings. As a result, car prices in the United Kingdom are down by about £1,100 on average, which means that there will be a competitive environment. If we look at the reasons given by General Motors worldwide for the decisions taken yesterday, we can see that the United Kingdom Competition Commission report was not a major factor.
  Judy Mallaber: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the same package of help is being made available to the 2,500 workers who have been made redundant from the clothing division of Coats Viyella, including 500 in my constituency which were announced on Monday? Those workers have also been treated shabbily by the company in terms of consultation and information. Tens of thousands of jobs have been lost in the clothing and textile industry, 500,000 of them under the Tory Government. My constituents and others in the industry are angry that they do not get the same attention as others in the national media. They feel that it is because the industry has a majority of women workers.
  Mr. Byers: It is a question of national media attention. As my hon. Friend knows, largely because of the work that she and other hon. Members who represent textile constituencies have done, this is an issue in which I have
  654
  been involved for some time. I can inform her that the full range of services and facilities will be made available from the Employment Service to help those who might be affected in the way that she has outlined. As I told her at Question Time last week, we always stand ready to meet constituency Members of Parliament to discuss continued Government assistance.
  Mr. Christopher Chope: The Secretary of State has been at pains to avoid any personal responsibility for this disaster for British manufacturing. Will he show his sincerity and his belief that we need to protect British manufacturing by assuring the House that, when the Health Council meets in Europe tomorrow, he and the Government will vote against the tobacco workers directive, which will threaten between 2,000 and 10,000 jobs in tobacco manufacturing in this country? If he votes in favour of the directive, he will be voting in favour of abolishing 10,000 jobs in tobacco export and manufacturing.
  Mr. Byers: General Motors referred to a number of issues in relation to its decision yesterday, but the tobacco workers directive was not one of them.
  Mr. Richard Burden: I can tell my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friends in Luton and surrounding constituencies that, with Longbridge in my constituency, the people of the west midlands well understand what they will be going through and the anger that will be felt about the way that General Motors announced its decision. I imagine that they will take as dim a view of the cheap political point scoring that we saw from the Opposition spokesman, the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory), as they did over Rover where the official Opposition had nothing constructive to say.
  The motor industry will remain a strategically important industry for this country and, if multinationals are making this sort of decision, we need to find ways of playing to our strengths. We must look at niche and medium-volume production, as we are doing successfully in Longbridge and look to an expansion of work in telematics, motor sport engineering and high performance engineering. Those are areas in which Britain already leads the world and we can do a lot more to build on and reinforce our motor industry, which is so strategically important to Britain.
  Mr. Byers: My hon. Friend makes an important point about not neglecting the fact that there are areas of strength within the car industry in the UK—not only the niche markets to which he has referred, but companies such as Peugeot, which is doing well in Coventry, and Ford with Jaguar and with Land Rover in Solihull. There are some solid areas of car production in the UK. We need to build on those strengths.
  My hon. Friend makes an important point about how we can develop beyond simple car production and manufacture to look at new areas and new techniques, genuinely playing to our strengths. There is real potential to do that, but there is little that the House can do today apart from reflect on the difficult situation that will be faced by thousands of hard-working people and their families in Luton and the surrounding communities. What the House must do, and what the Government certainly

  655
  will do, is ensure that we are at their side through this difficult period. We will not walk away from the problem. We will not leave it just to the market. We will work with those people to provide them with new opportunities for the future.
  That is an active role for Government to play. It is the right role for Government—not second guessing commercial decisions by multinational companies, but working with people who are affected by the changes that have to take place in a global economy.
  Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: I am a member of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry, which has met with Vauxhall and Nick Reilly. As late as October, there was absolutely no hint of restructuring, or possible closure of Luton.
  Obviously, everyone is amazed by the sudden announcement and the sheer volume of jobs that will be lost not just in Luton, but throughout the supply chain, which will affect the whole of the United Kingdom. I hope that my right hon. Friend will ensure that there will
  656
  be help not only to Luton, but to all the suppliers within the chain. I still believe that we should not roll over so quickly. We should take up the challenge with Vauxhall and see what else can be put there—see if other production can be moved in. After the success that he had with Rover, I do not think that we should give up quickly.
  Mr. Byers: The supply chain will be an important area. Our experience in other situations, whether Ford at Dagenham or Rover at Longbridge, showed that, often, the supply chain was the most vulnerable sector; it felt the immediate consequences of a major announcement. Because of the relatively long lead-in period in relation to the announcement on Luton, there are greater opportunities to ensure that the difficulties elsewhere do not occur on this occasion, but my hon. Friend is right to make the point. Obviously, our attention is focused on Luton and on those directly affected by the announcement. That is understandable and right, but we need to be conscious of the impact that the announcement will have on the supply chain, which is why we are specifically putting in place a programme to help suppliers to diversify, to reskill and to retool where it is appropriate for them to do so.

Point of Order
4.28 pm
Dr. Liam Fox: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will be well aware of the controversy surrounding the changes that the Government intend to make to the human fertilisation and embryology legislation. Strong views are held by Members on both sides of the House on that important issue. Therefore, it is of great importance that any changes be fully considered in the House, with Members enjoying full access to outside expertise.
On 7 December, the Leader of the House, who is in her place, announced a second debate for this Friday. She said:
we have already had a one-day debate on the matter on a Friday . that was followed by publication of draft regulations, which the House and those outside could study. The debate that I have just announced is a follow-up debate, in which the draft regulations can be discussed and in which Members can air their views.—[Official Report, 7 December 2000; Vol. 359, c. 123.]
Today, without warning, the Government produced new draft regulations, but gave no extra time for their consideration. Indeed, I understand that the House will be asked to make a final decision next Tuesday, less than four working days after publication of the draft regulations.
Many Members on both sides of the House will regard that as indecent haste on an important topic, and think that both the House of Commons and the public are being treated with contempt. In your role as the protector of the House's rights, can we prevail upon you to ask the Government to think again to give everyone involved in that important debate time to consider the changes that they have announced today?
Mr. Speaker: I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern, but he will know that that is not a matter for the Chair. He will have an opportunity to ventilate his concerns during the debate on Friday.

Orders of the Day

  Debate on the Address
  [SIXTH DAY]
  Order Read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [6 December],
  That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, as follows:
  Most Gracious Sovereign,
  We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Majesty for the Gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament—[Sir John Morris.]
  Question again proposed.

  The Economy
  Mr. Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition. Standing Order No.33 gives me the power on the last day of debate on the Loyal Address to select a second amendment, which will be moved formally and disposed of after 10 o'clock. I have selected the amendment in the name of the leader of the Liberal Democrats.
  4.30 pm
  Mr. Michael Portillo: I beg to move, as an amendment to the Address, at the end of the Question to add:
  But humbly regret that the Gracious Speech contains no proposals to reverse the policies that have given Britain an increasing burden of taxation and regulation, that it highlights the Government's failure to carry out the reforms it promised to make Britain a competitive and dynamic nation, that it contains no proposals to reverse the decline in Britain's productivity growth or the decline in the savings ratio, that it does nothing to ensure that the public accounts are honest and open, and that it contains no evidence of Her Majesty's Government having adopted a forward-looking approach to the challenges of the modern global economy.
  I also draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members' Interests.
  The Gracious Speech was intended to clear the decks for an election, but that was not the only reason it was so brief. It was the speech of a Government who are now entirely devoid of ideas. During the 18 years that Labour Members were in opposition, they developed only one idea, and that was to get themselves into power. Now that they are in office, they have nothing whatsoever to offer our people. So, with no vision for the next Parliament—
  Mr. Geraint Davies: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Portillo: I shall give way later in my speech.
  With no vision for the next Parliament, the Government will be judged on their broken promises: on higher taxes, on poorer public services, and on their betrayal of the hopes that they raised so falsely.
  Mr. Chris Pond: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Portillo: No.

  659
  Labour has taxed more and delivered less. Before the last election, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that he understood where previous Labour Governments had gone wrong. He said that they had been wrong to believe in tax and spend. He promised that this time it would be different, that Labour would reform the public services and would therefore be able to deliver improvements without having to raise taxes, but of course he has delivered the opposite.
  The Labour manifesto proclaimed that Labour would be wise spenders, not big spenders. It said that what mattered was not how much was spent, but how well or badly it was spent. Now the Chancellor talks only one language, that of big spending—"Never mind the value or the quality", he says, "look at the quantity."
  It took 18 years in opposition for the Labour party to learn wisdom and it has taken just three years for it to forget it all.
  Mr. Barry Gardiner: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Portillo: Let me finish this passage.
  The Chancellor is now committed to increasing Government spending over the next three years much faster than the growth rate of the economy, so we need to be told whether this is a policy for just three years. Is it a splurge which is announced just before an election to be followed by a painful return to reality afterwards? Is it a turning on of the taps now so that they can be turned off again in due course? Is it a bad old Labour policy of boom and bust? If it is—[Interruption.] There are many precedents of Labour spending and spending and then having to cut back. We have seen it all before. These are the lessons that the Chancellor said that he had learned, but he has not learned them. So is it a splurge? Will Departments rush to spend all the money before the closing down sale comes to an end? If so, it will produce very bad value and it will be a very bad policy.
  Alternatively, does the Chancellor propose to continue raising Government spending faster than the growth rate of the economy year after year, even after that three-year period? If that is the case it will lead to a bloated public sector increasingly squeezing out the private sector and private investment. It will mean that the Government will have to go on raising taxes year after year during the coming Parliament just as they have in this Parliament, and, just as has happened in this Parliament, the poorest in society will pay the most.
  So the question for the Chancellor today is a very simple one. Which is it to be: will it be boom and bust—the three-year programme followed by the whole thing being switched off—or will it be a continuous increase in Government spending faster than the nation could afford, with the burden being borne by the poorest members of society?
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Portillo: Why does the Chancellor not answer? It is either one or the other.
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gordon Brown): I can tell the House that we will meet our fiscal rules—the golden rule and the sustainable investment rule—over the economic cycle. Will the right hon. Gentleman now give us an answer: does he propose a balanced Budget, or does he propose to support our fiscal rules? Yes or no?
  Mr. Portillo: The Chancellor's fiscal rules, unfortunately, are not worth the paper they are written on. I shall come to that later in my speech. I shall dissect the Chancellor's fiscal rules and show him why they are not worth anything. I have used as the basis for my planning the same figures for surplus and deficit that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has used in planning his rules.
  Mr. Gardiner: The right hon. Gentleman has said that this Government were spending over and above what the country could afford—the equivalent of £600 for every taxpayer. Does his maths extend to multiplying £600 by 27 million—the number of taxpayers in this country? Does he agree that the figure thus produced—£16 billion—is the amount that he believes the Government are spending over and above what they should be spending? What would the right hon. Gentleman cut to bring spending back to what he believed was in line with what the country could afford?
  Mr. Portillo: I made all that clear in announcements that I made when I set out the proposals. With regard to the £16 billion, I shall quote Mr. Evan Davis, economics editor of the BBC's "Newsnight" programme. He said:
  Labour say it's a £16 billion spending cut, the Tories say it's £8 billion … on this one I think we can be definitive. The Tories are telling the truth, and only by wilfully misreading the Conservatives' spending plans can you call it £16 billion.
  Mr. Frank Dobson: He is a Tory.
  Mr. Portillo: It is only wilful misreading of the figures that allows the hon. Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner) to say that the cuts will amount to £16 billion. It is about time that Labour put that stupid figure to bed.
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer has not answered my question about what his policy will be. However, I shall tell the House all about our policy.
  Mr. Pond: I do not think the right hon. Gentleman was able to answer the question from my right hon. Friend the Chancellor about whether he was still in favour of a balanced Budget. If he is, how will he fund the tax cuts that he proposes?
  Mr. Portillo: The Chancellor of the Exchequer is not in favour of a balanced Budget. He is planning to borrow. [Interruption.] It would be much better for the order of the House if the Chancellor stood up to make interventions. I have just told him that I am making my plans on the same figures for surpluses and deficits over the next three years that he is using. It is wrong for the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Pond) to claim that the Chancellor is planning a balanced Budget; he is not.
  Mr. Gordon Brown: For the benefit of the House, the right hon. Gentleman should confirm that he put out a

  661
  press statement at the time of our spending review last July saying that our spending plans could not be afforded to the tune of £600 per taxpayer, or £16 billion. Also, will he now answer this question: if he does not accept our fiscal rules, which form the basis on which we will work, does he believe in a balanced Budget? Yes or no? If he believes in a balanced Budget, how can he fund tax cuts?
  Mr. Portillo: I believe in greater prudence than the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I believe in greater rectitude and in spending what the nation can afford. I believe in much tighter constraints on me, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, than the right hon. Gentleman has been willing to accept for himself. In the second half of my speech, I shall describe our rules, as well as tear his rules apart.
  Mr. John Bercow: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, as a result of this Government's policy of tax, tax and tax again, tax freedom day—the day on which we cease to work for the Chancellor and start to work for ourselves—is now 30 May? That is fully 20 days worse than in the United States of America. How much more deterioration does my right hon. Friend expect if the Chancellor's tax and spend policies are continued?
  Mr. Portillo: It is impossible to give my hon. Friend an accurate answer, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not tell us what his policy is. I have just asked him whether it is his policy to go on spending more than we can afford for three years or in perpetuity, and he would not answer. I suppose that we must assume it is his policy to go on spending more than we can afford in perpetuity. In the new year, I will produce the figure for the extra amount of taxation that would be required from every family in the country.
  The Chancellor's abandoned pledge to be wise on spending is the first of five pledges on the economy that he made before the election, all of which have now been broken. He also pledged not to increase tax at all, but the burden of tax is now up by 2.6 percentage points of gross domestic product. That is £25 billion, the equivalent of 10p on the standard rate of income tax. He has taxed what people earn, what they spend and what they save. He has hit marriages, mortgages, alcohol, tobacco and petrol.
  The Labour manifesto said:
  Labour is not about high taxes on ordinary people
  but that is exactly what the Labour Government have been about. Taxes have fallen most heavily on the poorest people in society, and Labour Members know the truth of that even though it is a truth that they dare not speak. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation reported this week that the Government have failed to attack the problem of poverty and inequality.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Portillo: I shall not give way.
  The third Labour pledge was not to impose burdensome regulations on business, but business taxes are up by £5 billion a year according to the Confederation of British Industry. The Institute of Directors states that the burden of regulation on business represents another £5 billion a year. Our tax advantage against the rest of the European
  662
  Community has been cut by two thirds according to PricewaterhouseCoopers. Theresa Graham, who heads the Government's better regulation task force, says that
  businesses are becoming more anti-government and are losing patience.
  Even the trade union boss, Ken Jackson, says that the Government need to deal more fairly with business. [Interruption.] Labour Members ought to listen.
  Fourthly, the Government pledged to promote a savings culture. The savings ratio is now at a 37-year low, according to the Office for National Statistics. Information from the House of Commons Library states that the Chancellor's policies will soon have brought one half of all our pensioners into means-tested benefits. Half our retired people will now be required to give their intimate details to the Government to get benefit. However, the Chancellor is still taking £5 billion a year from the pension funds of people who are now saving for their retirement. He is attacking the people who are trying to do the right thing and want to be independent. He is impoverishing future generations of pensioners, driving more and more of them to be dependent on the state.
  Fifthly, Labour promised to make Britain more competitive, but Britain has slipped behind. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development says that our economy has grown by 2.6 per cent. over the past three years. That is worse than our record in the previous 15 years and a good deal less than the achievement of the countries of the eurozone, which have had growth of 2.9 per cent. and about half the figure for the United States. The OECD also states that our share of exports is down. The Chancellor promised to transform our productivity and, yes, in his own particular way he has transformed it. In the past four years, our productivity growth has averaged 1.3 per cent. a year against an average of 3.1 per cent. in the early 1990s.
  Mr. Denis MacShane: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Portillo: No.
  Thirteen OECD countries have a better record on unemployment than Britain does. We have heard today with great sadness about the job losses at Vauxhall, but the problems of the car industry will get worse next year, when the Chancellor imposes an energy tax on our business that will cost every car manufacturer £1 million a year. The manufacturers in the rest of Europe will not face that burden. Again, I give the Chancellor the opportunity to promise that he will abandon this job-destroying tax, which will make life so much more difficult for our car manufacturers.
  Mr. Bercow: The Chancellor is laughing about it.
  Mr. Portillo: Yes, I see that, too. The Chancellor laughs about his job-destroying tax. This is a Chancellor—
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Portillo: I shall not give way. I am going to talk about the Chancellor. This is a Chancellor—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order.
  Mr. Portillo: This is a Chancellor who thinks that he is cleverer than everyone around him, and cleverer than those sitting behind him. He is the clever so-and-so who devised the stealth taxes, and they were too clever by half. Any of those hon. Members behind the Chancellor, whom he holds—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that we have had enough sedentary interventions.
  Mr. Portillo: Any of those hon. Members sitting behind the Chancellor—those people he holds in such intellectual contempt—could have told him—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Do hon. Gentlemen deny it? I do not think so. Any of them could have told the Chancellor that the tax on petrol was not actually a stealth tax; it was displayed in blazing figures on every garage forecourt in the country. It was not so much a stealth tax as a neon-lit, 1 ft-high, you could not miss it in a blizzard tax, but the Chancellor proceeded with it. His Back Benchers could have told him—
  Mr. Geraint Davies: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Portillo: I will in a moment.
  If the Chancellor had been listening, his Back Benchers could have told him that pensioners would not take the 75p insult lying down. Only a Chancellor who is hopelessly out of touch with the British people could have acted so, without sparing a thought for the hardships being faced by pensioners and families.
  Labour's summer of discontent had just one cause and one author: the man who is sitting opposite me—the Chancellor of the Exchequer, still wholly unrepentant. Labour is never having to say one is sorry. Even now, the Chancellor still refuses to acknowledge in the House that the tax burden is up, even though his own figures—distorted as they are—prove it to be perfectly true. So, he has banned Ministers from using the expression "tax burden". First, he taxed stealthily; now he wants to tax silently. He hopes that by banishing the thought, he can banish the concept. A Government who claim to be in touch with ordinary people tell families that taxes are not a burden but some sort of opportunity.
  Even if Labour was never believed by the British people about what it would do on tax, the British people at least hoped that it would deliver on public services—but how they were deceived about that. We were told that Labour would save the national health service. Three and a half years on, waiting lists are longer and the Prime Minister predicts a crisis in the health service. If it is Labour and it is winter, there must be discontent.
  Labour election posters promised smaller class sizes. Three and a half years on, the Labour party's own website says that class sizes in secondary schools are rising very slowly. That passes for candour under new Labour. Teachers are leaving; they have been let down and they are voting with their feet. Even this Government cannot blame the previous Conservative Government for the fact that teachers have lost patience with the Labour Government.
  The Government promised to be tough on crime, but there are fewer police officers and the number of bobbies on the beat is the lowest for a decade. Crime is rising;
  664
  serious offenders are being released before their sentence has been served. Violent crime is up by a sixth—all of that, two years after the Chancellor told The Sun that they were determined to get value for every penny they spent.
  Anyone who believed the Chancellor then should take a short ride on the Jubilee line. The dome is a stinking mess of incompetence and shoddy accounting. Millions of hard-working punters have bought their lottery tickets week after week merely to see Ministers squander that money. Was that money not meant to be used for good causes? Would not £800 million spent on the dome have bought another Great Ormond street hospital for sick children in Manchester and one in Leeds, one in Newcastle and another in Bristol, with money left over?
  Mr. Phil Hope: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. Do not he and his party support mixed economy funding for the health service? Will he now rule out charging patients for consulting their GP as part of Conservative policy?
  Mr. Portillo: That is no part of our policy. If I may so, it is a very stupid question.
  Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Portillo: I have much respect for the hon. Gentleman; I happily give way.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: The right hon. Gentleman says that he would have spent the money for the dome on hospitals. I understand that all his colleagues spent the past three years arguing that they did not want lottery money to be spent on the NHS.
  Mr. Portillo: I said no such thing. I said that £800 million is an awful lot of money. I said that everything in the lottery was meant to be for good causes—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman tries to make light of £800 million; he knows the truth. I do not suppose that his constituents are any happier than anyone else's that £800 million was spent on that piece of vanity when it could have been spent on much better things.
  Mr. Matthew Taylor: Will the shadow Chancellor clarify for the House whether, when he was in government, he urged his Cabinet colleagues not to spend money on the dome, but to spend it on hospitals? If so, that is welcome news for which I shall credit the right hon. Gentleman. However, that is certainly not what was reported.
  Mr. Portillo: The disaster of the dome was the way in which it was planned by the Government. That was a disgrace. [Laughter.] The public know that, and know that it is a monument to new Labour. The dome was supposed to have been on the first page of the new Labour manifesto. It has new Labour fingerprints all over it, which is why people are so angry with the Government.
  Mr. Clive Efford: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Portillo: No, I shall keep going.

  665
  The Government have broken all their promises and have taxed more and delivered less. The Gracious Speech shows that they have no vision for the future. The Opposition have a vision, founded on a disciplined approach to macro-economic management. We will be ruled by five disciplines: first, we will have our own currency; secondly, we will increase the independence of the Bank of England; thirdly, we will set up a fiscal policy watchdog; fourthly, we will establish a national accounts commission; and fifthly, the Government will spend only what the nation can afford.
  Mr. MacShane: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Portillo: No, I shall keep going at this point.
  My policy is to keep the pound. The Chancellor wants to scrap it, and he has devised five completely subjective tests to hide behind until the Government believe that they can get away with that. We plan our policy on the basis of Britain's having its own autonomous monetary policy. The Chancellor is unable to say whether his plans for the next Parliament are based on Britain's having such a policy. That is a glaring gap at the centre of his policies.
  We shall make the Bank of England more independent. The Chancellor wants to take away its powers. His policy is to let the European central bank set interest rates. At the next election, there will be only one party fighting for Britain's interest rates to be set by an independent Bank of England, and that will be the Conservative party.
  Mr. Geraint Davies: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Portillo: No, I will not give way while I am going through this sequence.
  Mr. Davies: What about the fiscal committee?
  Mr. Portillo: I have not got to the fiscal committee yet.
  I plan to put an end to the Chancellor's spin on and distortion of the making of economic policy. I will establish a committee of expert commentators to sustain an open debate about economic policy making.
  The Chancellor claims to be tied by fiscal rules, but they tie him to nothing. The so-called golden rule that allows him to borrow for so-called investment would enable him to borrow between £150 billion and £300 billion over the cycle, depending on what he chose to call investment. No wonder he has to repeat the word "prudence" again and again, like a man trying to convince himself. The more he spoke of his honesty, the faster we counted the spoons.
  We have had enough of the Chancellor distorting the figures and disguising his tax increases. We have had enough of Budgets that are all spin and that fail to tell the public that he has raided their savings or put petrol up by three times more than pensions. We are tired of him massaging the statistics and claiming that Government spending is not Government spending. The OECD and the ONS are fed up with him too, and have criticised him for his sleight of hand. We shall therefore appoint a national accounts commission to put the nation's accounts on a proper footing.
  666
  The Chancellor thinks that Government statistics should tell a story, but we believe that they should tell the truth. My policy is for the Government to spend what the country can afford. Having promised so much before, the Chancellor now promises the earth whether the country can afford it or not. Ours is the only genuinely sustainable policy. It allows tax cuts for hard-working families, pensioners and businesses. Those who would follow a different path should say where the money would come from. The Conservative party never forgets that it is the people's money.
  Mr. Pond rose—
  Mr. Dobson rose—
  Mr. Portillo: I shall give way to the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson).
  Mr. Dobson: The right hon. Gentleman says that he would take a disciplined approach to public borrowing. He wants to be the Chancellor of the Exchequer, so I remind him that he has already been a Treasury Minister. When he was Chief Secretary to the Treasury, his disciplined approach to public borrowing resulted in a public sector borrowing requirement of £47 billion in his first year and £50 billion in his second. One of the economy measures that he pushed through to try to put that right was to reduce the number of nurses going into training to a measly 12,000. That is one reason why the national health service is so short of nurses now.
  Mr. Portillo: All the right hon. Gentleman's figures are wrong for the years in which I was at the Treasury. However, I agree that there are dangers when an economy goes into recession. Consequently, any prudent Chancellor of the Exchequer would plan to grow public spending by less than the underlying trend growth rate of the economy. If that is not done, we will end up in the same difficulties again. Only a man with the arrogance of the current Chancellor could believe that the economic cycle has been abolished.
  Mr. Dobson: The right hon. Gentleman said that I misled the House. He was Chief Secretary to the Treasury in 1992–93 and 1993–94. The official figures show that the borrowing total was £47 billion in 1992–93, and £50 billion in 1993–94. On top of that, the figures show that almost 3 million people were out of work at that time, compared with slightly more than 1 million today.
  Mr. Portillo: I tell the right hon. Gentleman this: we have reached a state of affairs with the Labour party in which every figure is fiddled, everything is distorted, and everything is spun. It can barely surprise anyone that no Opposition Member, no Labour Member and no member of the public believes a word that it says about anything.
  Mr. Efford: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Portillo: No; I shall make some progress.
  It is outrageous that the Chancellor of the Exchequer postures as the pensioners' friend. Before the general election, he promised to end means-testing for pensioners. Now, he has done exactly the opposite. There is more

  667
  means-testing, more form filling, less dignity. We have proposals on this—[Interruption.] Yes, we do. Those who receive the state pension know that the current Chancellor will give them a pittance whenever he can get away with it, and a fiver whenever it is an election year. By increasing the mean-tested supplementary pension, the Chancellor himself drives home the point that he recognises that the retirement pension is inadequate, yet, he has no vision for the future, no plan to rectify the situation, no care for reform.
  The problem is that this year's national insurance contributions pay this year's pensioners. The money is never invested and never grows, so pensioners are not able to participate in the growing wealth of the nation. We want to give young people the option of paying their contributions into a fund that would be invested and that would grow.
  Ms Sally Keeble: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Portillo: I shall shortly.
  Such an arrangement would be much more likely to provide future generations of pensioners with much better pensions.
  Ms Keeble: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Portillo: Not if the hon. Lady keeps yelling at me.
  Such an arrangement would also, over time, sharply reduce the burden on future generations of taxpayers. The Chancellor's policy is to discourage saving and to raid the pension funds of those who are saving for their retirement to fund his spending spree today. Our policy is to encourage the young to save, so that they can look forward to retirement free from means-testing and free from financial worry.
  Mr. Matthew Taylor: Given that, under the Conservatives' plans the national insurance fund would have not only to pay pensions to current pensioners but contribute towards the pensions of a future generation, would the right hon. Gentleman cut pensions to make up the gap? If not, which tax would he increase to fund the proposed addition?
  Mr. Portillo: I would not go down either route.
  Ms Keeble: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. There is little point in the hon. Lady seeking to intervene when the shadow Chancellor is responding to an intervention that he has already received.
  Mr. Portillo: I would not go down either route. However, I am shocked by the implied timidity of the question asked by the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell (Mr. Taylor). We have a huge liability to pay pensions decades and decades ahead, and it is a real liability. The Government like to pretend that that liability does not exist, and that is why we now have national accounts that do not identify it. However, the liability
  668
  exists. Are we incapable in politics today of having a mature debate about how we could remove that liability? We can do that only on the basis of national consensus and on the basis of the financial community believing that it is the right thing to do. What a contrast—the Conservative party is willing to address serious issues that will affect generations of taxpayers and pensioners; we have the imagination, whereas the Labour party and the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell lack it.
  Ms Keeble: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Portillo: No, I must make progress. I have been on my feet for a long time. [HON. MEMBERS: "Are you tired?"] No, I—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The House must come to order. There have been enough sedentary interventions—consistent, organised interventions—and the shadow Chancellor should be heard with patience.
  Mr. Portillo: I referred to the length of time I have been on my feet out of courtesy to right hon. and hon. Members who want to speak later in the debate.
  We also propose that, in future, windfall receipts from further sales of the bandwidth spectrum should be used to endow some of our universities so that they no longer depend on a drip feed, year by year, from the state. Clearly, one effect of that would be to reduce the size of the state and the level of Government spending. Another effect would be to enable our universities to play a much more dynamic role in our economy. A university such as Stanford, in California, became the intellectual powerhouse behind Silicon valley. Some of our best universities want the same freedom to play a more dynamic role in the British economy.
  When Opposition Members speak of British universities, it is to enable them to flourish. When the Chancellor of the Exchequer addresses the subject of our great universities, it is merely to attack them, playing to a gallery of envy and prejudice. The Chancellor put the proceeds of the telecom licence sales into Government bonds. We will invest the fruits of the knowledge society in the knowledge economy.
  Mrs. Anne Campbell: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Portillo: No; I have nearly finished.
  On health care, we have established a political consensus with the Labour party on providing significant additional funds for the national health service. However, Conservatives believe that that should not be the end of the discussion. Very few countries in Europe attempt, as Britain does, to bear almost the entire cost of health care on taxation alone.
  Mr. Roger Casale: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Portillo: If the hon. Gentleman listens, he might learn something.
  Our neighbours in Europe have more mixed systems. For example, employers and trade union health care schemes play a much more significant part in the total health budget in many other countries. That has enabled

  669
  such countries to spend significantly higher proportions of their national prosperity on health care than we do in Britain. Surely, except to the most blinkered and ideological individuals, that is a lesson that could help Britain have more doctors, nurses and hospitals.
  Every week, the Prime Minister misrepresents our commitment to the national health service. However, the Government will pay the price. It is the Government who are blinkered. They are the ones who live in fear of change, wedded to an ideology suited to the 1940s and absolutely unsuited to the new century.
  Mr. Casale: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. He will remember that he made a speech in the House about the health service on 18 January. He described the setting up of the national health service as a historical accident, rather than the crowning achievement of the post-war Labour Government, and the public funding of the health service as a national disgrace, rather than something that has great popular consent. Two weeks later, he was made shadow Chancellor. Is it still his policy to try to privatise the health service by introducing charging and making patients pay for hip replacements, knee replacements and so on? If not, how does he propose to pay for the NHS?
  Mr. Portillo: It is possible that there would be some respect for the hon. Gentleman if he did not distort what other people had said. He says that he can find the word "disgrace" in my speech. Will he get up now and tell me where I used the word "disgrace"?
  Mr. Casale: I shall read the passage to the right hon. Gentleman. He said:
  Given that this country has what appears, at least on paper, to be the most socialist of all health services that I can think of—as Geoffrey Rivett would say, at least outside the old eastern bloc—it is a national disgrace that this is the country where having money makes the biggest difference—[Official Report, 18 January 2000; Vol. 342, c. 735.]
  Mr. Portillo: Exactly. The hon. Gentleman is a disgrace because he comes to this place and distorts what others have said. No one will have any respect for the hon. Gentleman when he does that.
  Mr. Casale rose—
  Mr. Portillo: I will give way if the hon. Gentleman is getting up to apologise. That was a complete—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
  Mr. Casalerose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. All hon. Members must sit down when I am on my feet.
  Mr. Portillo: I will give way to the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr. Casale) only if he is going to apologise for that disgraceful misrepresentation of what I said.
  Labour spent 18 years in opposition and the British people were willing to back Labour only when it committed itself to low taxes and to good value in public spending. The Government were elected to improve public services and reform the welfare state. They promised business that they
  670
  would make Britain more prosperous. They talked the talk but could not walk the walk. In office, they have piled on taxes and regulations and Britain has slipped behind.
  Labour has broken every promise. People have paid the tax but now they wait longer for operations; they have paid the tax but school classes have got bigger; they have paid the tax but there is not a policeman to be seen.
  In the 1970s, the Chancellor wrote books. He ranted then against Thatcherism and the market economy. Now, as Chancellor, he remains trapped by dogma, unable to think new ideas. The Conservative party is different. Our policies are based on honesty and transparency—things for which, after three years of Labour Government, the people of this country hunger. We are not afraid to propose change. Our policies are shaped to make Britain competitive in the 21st century.
  The Gracious Speech provided telling proof not of a Government who have run out of ideas, but of a party that never had any in the first place. The Labour manifesto was all spin and the Labour Government are all spin and no delivery.
  5.7 pm
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gordon Brown): I will speak about our economic agenda for the coming year, entrenching stability, improving employment and productivity, raising living standards for all and strengthening public investment in our services.
  In his speech, the shadow Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Portillo), could not tell us what fiscal rules a Conservative Government would operate if they were ever in government. I will happily give way now if he can tell us. Given that he does not accept our fiscal rules, does he believe in a balanced budget?
  The right hon. Gentleman also outlined—I will return to this—a Conservative plan for the privatisation of the basic pension for young people, but he could not explain to the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell (Mr. Taylor), how much money could be lost to the national insurance fund and therefore to pensioners for present and future pensions that have to be paid. Then the right hon. Gentleman said that he planned a mixed economy for the national health service. He ruled out charges for doctors, but refused to tell us what that involved—whether it is charges for hospitals or private medical insurance, or whether it will mean moving people out of the national health service, as the shadow health spokesman proposes, by performing what he calls non-urgent operations in private hospitals.
  We will take no lectures on taxation from the right hon. Gentleman, who was at the Treasury between 1992 and 1994. He was the Chief Secretary who piloted through the House value added tax on fuel, the insurance tax, the airports tax, the freezing of the personal allowance for income tax and the allowance for top rate taxation, the national insurance rises, and the fuel duty escalator. He did so after promising at the previous general election that there would be no VAT on fuel—indeed, no tax rises at all.
  Mr. Bercow rose—
  Mr. Brown: I will be happy to give way to the hon. Gentleman, but surely the shadow Chancellor should

  671
  answer why he should be trusted on taxation when he broke every promise when he was Chief Secretary to the Treasury. I will give way to someone who wants to speak for him—one who is still a member of the No Turning Back group.
  Mr. Bercow: That was a long-winded apologia. Why in the speech on the pre-Budget report did the right hon. Gentleman fail even to mention his 7.5 per cent. increase in the upper earnings limit on national insurance contributions, which will hit up to 1 million working people? Is he proud of the fact that, as a result of that stealth tax, 20,000 nurses, 9,000 policemen and 23,000 teachers will face a tax hike of up to £200 a year?
  Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman should really do his research before he comes to the House of Commons. I answered all those points in detail at a meeting of the Select Committee on the Treasury, when I pointed out to him that the measure on national insurance was announced in the 1999 Budget. It was in the Red Book for 2000.
  Mr. Bercow: I was not there.
  Mr. Brown: If the hon. Gentleman is denying that, I shall happily give way so that he can explain why.
  Mr. Bercow: There is a good reason why I was not present at the meeting of the Treasury Committee. Quite simply, I am not a member of that Committee. The right hon. Gentleman is getting confused. Will he confirm that 20,000 nurses, 9,000 policemen and 23,000 teachers will be worse off as a result of the policy that he has introduced? If not, it is about time that he explained himself.
  Mr. Brown: What I said to the hon. Gentleman—again, let us have accuracy—was that, if he had done his research properly, he would have known that the measure was in the 1999 Budget. That was made clear at the time. I explained to the Treasury Committee that the allegations that the Conservatives first made in The Daily Telegraph, which they then tried to make to the Daily Mail, and subsequently, over a number of weeks, they tried to give the impression that the measure had never been announced, when it was announced in the House of Commons. The hon. Gentleman should accept that that is the case.
  As for taxation, what did the hon. Gentleman say to nurses and teachers when VAT was put on fuel? What did he say when national insurance was put up for everyone? What did he say when personal allowances were frozen? What did he say when airport tax and insurance tax were introduced? What did he say then?
  Mr. Bercow: I was not a Member of Parliament at the time.
  Mr. Brown: Oh, there are different ways in which people try to excuse themselves from taking responsibility for the Conservative party's work in government. The hon. Gentleman, who is a Conservative Front-Bench spokesman, does not want to defend the record of the
  672
  previous Conservative Government. I know that there is a split between him and the shadow Chancellor, because the hon. Gentleman has not left the No Turning Back group. He should make up his mind. Does he want to defend the Conservative party when it was in government or does he not?
  We will not take any lectures from the Conservative party or the shadow Chancellor on public spending. After all, in October 1997, following the general election, the shadow Chancellor explained that the Conservative party was unpopular because of damaging cuts in public spending. In his lecture of October 1997, he said that the Tories were linked to harshness and thought to be uncaring about unemployment, about poverty, about poor housing, about disability, about single parenthood and were thought to favour greed. If the shadow Chancellor really believes that, he should think twice about proposals for privatisation or deep cuts in our public services.
  We should not take any lectures from the shadow Chancellor on the running of the economy. After all, in September 1998, he said that of course, it—meaning the Conservative party—should be apologetic about the mismanagement of the economy. The shadow Chancellor now comes before us to criticise the record of the Labour Government, but he knows perfectly well that he understood the Conservative Government to have been guilty of mismanagement of the economy.
  The hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) is here, and he recently said in the House of Commons:
  We made the most dreadful mistakes.
  It is the shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury who said that. He went on to say:
  we did many things … of which we are deeply ashamed.—[Official Report, 1 March 2000; Vol. 345, c. 493.]
  So they should be. The idea that Conservative Members can come to the House and say that they have a manifesto on which they will go to the country, only to repeat the mistakes of the 1992 to 1997 period or the period from 1979 onwards, is something that the electorate will not accept.
  Mr. Edward Davey: Does the Chancellor agree that borrowing for current expenditure is taxation deferred? Labour tax rises can therefore be considered to be Conservative tax rises.
  Mr. Brown: We do not accept that. We have published forecasts on the growth of the economy and the fiscal position. It would be interesting to know the fiscal position of the Liberal Democrats, as they seem to have a rule that changes every day. Every day that we invest something, they always want more. Does the Liberal Democrat party agree with the Conservative party that there should be a balanced budget? Is that its policy? Or does it agree with the golden rule? Perhaps the Liberal Democrat spokesman on Treasury matters can tell us?
  Mr. Edward Leigh rose—
  Mr. Brown: Ah, another person who was a member of the No Turning Back group.
  Mr. Leigh: I do not know why the Chancellor is so interested in a Tory dining club. Obviously, we are making our point. What is the Chancellor's current

  673
  estimate for the surplus over the lifetime of the next Parliament? As every economic commentator accepts that that is a large sum, thanks to the increase in stealth taxation, will he accept that there is considerable scope for tax rises and for maintaining essential public services? What is his estimate for the surplus over the lifetime of the next Parliament?
  Mr. Brown: That is an interesting question. We have rules. The current budget must balance over the cycle. In other words, tax revenues must be equivalent to current public expenditure. That is a clear fiscal rule. We take the view that, given 20 years of under-investment in our social fabric, borrowing to invest in public services, such as transport, health and education, is necessary. That is why we say that, if there is a prudent and sustainable level of debt to GDP—that is the mechanism that we have chosen and which is examined by the National Audit Office—it is right in certain circumstances to borrow for investment.
  Those are our two fiscal rules. Those are the rules that show that there will be a current surplus over the cycle. We will borrow if necessary for the public investment that our country needs, subject to a sustainable debt to GDP ratio. The sustainable ratio is below 40 per cent. In fact, as I reported to the House a few weeks ago, it is falling to 30 per cent.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Brown: I shall give way in a minute, but perhaps the shadow Chancellor will now answer my question. If he professes to be putting forward a more rigorous economic and fiscal policy than we are, if he does not accept those two fiscal rules, which are the discipline upon our Government—if he believes that those rules are not a proper discipline—perhaps he can say whether his rule is to go for a balanced budget. If his rule is for a balanced budget, how in the world can the Leader of the Opposition propose tax cuts at the next general election? I will give the shadow Chancellor the opportunity to answer that question, then I shall allow surrogates for him to come in if necessary. I responded to the shadow Chancellor at the beginning of the debate—
  Mr. Portillo: The right hon. Gentleman did not answer my question.
  Mr. Brown: I did. It is interesting that the shadow Chancellor does not want to know that we work within those two fiscal rules. They may be technical rules, but they are fiscal rules that are understood. The question that he must answer is whether he faces a balanced budget—yes or no?
  Mr. Portillo: Is it the Chancellor's policy to increase Government spending faster than the growth rate of the economy for three years or beyond the three years—yes or no?
  Mr. Brown: As I say, my policy is to work within our fiscal rules. It is precisely because there is under-investment in our social fabric that we are investing.
  Mr. Portillo: Will the Chancellor give way?
  Mr. Brown: I will give way if the right hon. Gentleman will answer the question. Does he believe in a balanced budget—yes or no?
  Mr. Portillo: Why will the Chancellor not answer my question? Is his policy to go on spending faster than the growth rate of the economy for just three years or beyond the three years? A very simple question—please answer it.
  Mr. Brown: We will work within our fiscal rules. Our fiscal rules are over the cycle. The right hon. Gentleman seems to have forgotten that those fiscal rules are over the cycle. The current budget must balance. In other words, current expenditure must be financed by tax revenues over the cycle. We will borrow for necessary investment, but subject to a sustainable debt to GDP ratio.
  Those are the two rules. They are understood in the economic community. The shadow Chancellor may wish to attack them. They are well understood and commented on generally. The question that the shadow Chancellor must answer is what is his rule. Is it a balanced budget, in which case he has no scope for tax cuts? He is deceiving the electorate if he believes that he can go to the electorate and say that he wants a balanced budget and tax cuts. Is it a balanced budget or not? He used to believe in a balanced budget. Some Conservative Members still believe in a balanced budget.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Brown: The right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) certainly believes in a balanced budget.
  I have given the shadow Chancellor my two rules. He may disagree with them, but they are the two rules. Does he believe in a balanced budget—yes or no?
  Mr. Portillo: The Chancellor's rules are inadequate. I will impose extra disciplines; I have set out and named five disciplines. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether he will raise Government spending faster than the growth rate of the economy for only three years, or beyond? If it is beyond, that means extra taxes and he should be honest with the British people. If it is only for three years, it is boom and bust, bad spending and a bad policy. Of course, it is a bad policy anyway, as it squeezes out the private sector. Why cannot he tell us: three years or more than three years?
  Mr. Brown: The House will know that I have answered the question. The fiscal rules will be observed. We have observed them over the past three and a half years and we will do so over the next period. We are investing where it is necessary to do so, subject to a debt to GDP ratio that has fallen from 40 per cent. towards 30 per cent. Those are our two fiscal rules. Does the right hon. Gentleman believe in a balanced budget? If he cannot answer that question, everything that the Leader of the Opposition is saying about tax cuts is hollow.
  The shadow Chancellor denied that he had said that there was a difference of £16 billion between our spending plans and what could be afforded. I have the statement that he issued.
  Sir Peter Tapsell: Before the Chancellor moves on from the question of the balanced budget—
  Mr. Brown: I know that there are many factions in the Conservative party, but I want to deal with one at a time. I know that the hon. Gentleman does not share the views of the shadow Chancellor.

  675
  Under the headline, "Labour Return to Tax and Spend say Conservatives", the shadow Chancellor was quoted directly as saying:
  What's more they are now committed to increasing spending quicker than the economy is growing. Their extra spending, over and above what the country can afford, is equivalent to £600 for every taxpayer.
  Worked out over the 28 million taxpayers, that is £16 billion. Does the right hon. Gentleman deny issuing that statement?
  Sir Peter Tapsell rose—
  Mr. Brown: That is a question for the shadow Chancellor
  Sir Peter Tapsell: If my right hon. Friend will not answer, I will have to do so.
  Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman might wish to be the shadow Chancellor—and would, indeed, be more effective in that role—but the right hon. Gentleman has refused to answer our question: does he believe in a balanced budget or not? I thought that that was simple. It is simple for some Back Benchers.
  Sir Peter Tapsell: It is too simple. I shall explain why if the right hon. Gentleman sits down.
  Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman will get his chance. I am pleased that he is not asking a question about Europe today. Or perhaps he is.
  The shadow Chancellor can now answer my question. Did he or did he not say:
  Their extra spending, over and above what the country afford, is equivalent to £600 for every taxpayer?
  That is £16 billion. Will he confirm or deny that statement? He gave the House the impression that he had never used those figures.
  Sir Peter Tapsell: Has the Chancellor given way?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I must tell the Chancellor that if no hon. Member is offering to intervene, there is little point in him sitting down for a long time. If he does so, another hon. Member will inevitably fill the gap.
  Mr. Brown: 1 am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Let us put on record that the shadow Chancellor has refused to tell us what his fiscal rule is. The Conservatives used to say that it was a balanced budget or working towards a balanced budget, but the right hon. Gentleman has refused to tell us. We know why he cannot do so. If he gives the impression that he supports a balanced budget—1 believe that he probably does—he will be admitting that he cannot afford any tax cuts. That is the position. The right hon. Gentleman can now correct me by telling us whether he believes in a balanced budget, but I believe that this has already been a very illuminating occasion.
  The right hon. Gentleman claimed that the Tories never had in mind the £16 billion figure. I have just read out the statement to which my hon. Friend the Member for
  676
  Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) referred—£600 per taxpayer, or £16 billion. The Conservatives believe that £16 billion cannot be afforded above what has been allocated—properly, in their view. They would prefer cuts of £16 billion. The statement issued by the shadow Chancellor proves that to be the case.
  Mr. Portillo rose—
  Mr. Brown: I shall give way if the right hon. Gentleman can confirm that statement.
  Mr. Portillo: I set out very clearly the fact that we intend to vary the Government's spending plans by £8 billion, and to give tax cuts to pensioners, savers, businesses and all the people who have been clobbered by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The independent economics editor of the BBC, Evan Davis, said:
  Labour say it's a £16 billion spending cut, the Tories say it's £8 billion. And on this one I think we can be definitive. The Tories are telling the truth and only by wilfully misreading the Conservatives' spending plans can you call it £16 billion.
  Why does the Chancellor go on with this rubbish? Is it simply because the Labour party has invested so much in posters and leaflets that will now have to be torn up? Why cannot it address reality? Why does it have to distort and spin and twist the truth in every single instance?
  Mr. Brown: The shadow Chancellor seems to want to believe the economics editor of the BBC before he believes himself. The right hon. Gentleman said:
  That extra spending, over and above what the country can afford, is equivalent to £600 for every taxpayer.
  That amounts to £16 billion. That statement was issued by the shadow Chancellor; it is in his name. It states:
  Released by: The Rt Hon Michael Portillo MP
  on Tuesday 18 July 2000. It even has a time for the release of the statement.
  We have established two things today that will be very significant in future months. The Conservatives cannot tell us whether they believe in a balanced budget or not. They have no fiscal rules. The shadow Chancellor made a statement about the £16 billion figure, and he is unable to deny it, other than by quoting a secondary source. Given that it was he who made the statement, it would be better if he were able to deny it himself.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Brown: I shall give way to the hon. Member for Louth and Horncastle (Sir P. Tapsell), the right hon. Member for Wokingham and the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples), and then I shall make some progress.
  Sir Peter Tapsell: All this time-wasting waffle with which the Chancellor has been padding out his speech is nonsense. He keeps making the absurdly over-simplistic point about there being some wonderful rule based on a balanced budget, which will be for the lifetime of the cycle. The economic community does not take that very seriously because nobody knows the length of the cycle. If only the Chancellor could grasp that. We do not know how long the cycle will last, or whether it will be one of prosperity or depression. Mr. Greenspan and all of the

  677
  economic community in America are locked in an intellectual argument about whether there will be a soft landing or a hard landing. The Chancellor is not addressing his mind to those serious points; he is just talking schoolboy economics.
  Mr. Brown: When the previous Conservative Government said that they would balance the budget over the cycle, that should never have been believed, either.
  I give way to the right hon. Member for Wokingham.
  Mr. John Redwood: My constituents understand that the Government have put taxes up a lot. They can see and feel that, and they are prepared to believe that this Government are spending more than the previous Government. However, what they find odd is the fact that they do not have enough policemen, teachers, doctors or nurses. They have fewer of many of them than under the previous Conservative Government. When will some of that money get through to pay the wages of the people whom we want, instead of buying an army of spin doctors and bogus advice for the Chancellor?
  Mr. Brown: The right hon. Gentleman is now a supporter of public spending. That is a conversion indeed. He said at lunchtime in a speech that was issued by the Press Association that the divide in the Conservative party was not really between the mods and the rockers, because there was only one rocker, namely, the shadow Home Secretary, but between the Europhiles and the Eurosceptics. I believe that that is the position from which he comes on just about everything.
  On the right hon. Gentleman's question about public spending, will he support the £5 billion extra a year that we are putting into education? Will he support the 20 per cent. rise in transport spending—our £180 billion plan for transport—that we are proposing, which the shadow Chancellor refuses to support? Will he support the extra expenditure on law and order—the 6 per cent. real terms increase a year? Will he therefore now support our public spending plans? I think that he would agree with me that it is impossible to get doctors, nurses and other people to serve in our public services unless we have the money to pay their salaries. If he agrees with that, he has become a supporter of the Government's plans and will be, once again, at odds with the shadow Chancellor.
  Mr. John Maples: I hope that the Chancellor can help the House to understand something about his golden rule. If current spending grows faster than GDP, is it not inevitable that taxes must grow faster than GDP as well?
  Mr. Brown: I think that the hon. Gentleman has misunderstood our rule. Current spending must be balanced by current revenues. That is the point of the rule, which applies over the cycle. Current public spending over this Parliament, if he looks at the figures, is 2.25 per cent. The difference, I suspect, between him and me is that while he wants to believe in a balanced budget, he will not show disloyalty to the shadow Chancellor, at least in the Chamber, although he will disagree with me. I suspect that that is his position. He obviously does not want to respond to that point. We think that it is right, given the needs of public investment in health, education, transport and our public services generally, that we should
  678
  borrow where necessary for investment, subject to the discipline that we have upheld—the debt to GDP ratio will fall from 40 per cent.
  As we have repaid so much debt this year—I thought that the shadow Chancellor might have applauded us for that—the debt to GDP ratio is falling to 30 per cent. Again, he has failed to answer the question: does he support a balanced budget or not? That is at the heart of the Conservatives' campaign. They want tax cuts, but they cannot tell us whether they support a balanced budget. Indeed, because they are in such a mess, they cannot offer any fiscal rules.
  Mr. Geraint Davies: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Tories cannot suggest fiscal rules because their express policy is to establish a new independent committee of economic advisers, presumably with Evan Davis on it, to oversee fiscal policy? They have no ideas of their own and no idea of how to run the economy—they want independent ideas. The public do not trust the Tories, so they say that someone else will run their policy.
  Mr. Brown: I am not sure that that is an entirely new idea. The right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) is here, and he would agree that the introduction of the wise men before the Bank of England became independent was an innovation that happened under his Government as they tried to meet the inflation target and sought independent advice. Far from the idea being a great innovation in economic policy, it is simply a repetition of what has been done.
  Again, we come back to this straightforward issue: if the Tories believe that £16 billion is the difference between what we are spending and what we can afford, they should have the courage of their convictions to say that. That is what the debate in the No Turning Back group has been about. If the Tories believe in a balanced budget, they should tell us that that is what they believe in. If they believe in a balanced budget, they cannot tell the electorate that they promise tax cuts. The way in which the debate has developed has been very illuminating.
  Mr. William Ross: Will the Chancellor give way?
  Mr. Brown: Once more, then I must make progress.
  Mr. Ross: I am not a member of the Conservative party, but I am interested in what the Chancellor said about the ratio of public debt to GDP. He did not make clear to the House what ratio he had in mind or whether that ratio was to total public sector debt or to central Government debt. Will he please elucidate?
  Mr. Brown: The public sector debt is set out in the Red Book. We seek a figure of less than 40 per cent. Of course, in other countries debt can be a lot higher. We have reduced debt from the 44 per cent. that we inherited after national debt doubled—partly under the stewardship of the shadow Chancellor—to 33 per cent. It is falling to 30 per cent. in the next two or three years. The idea that we have not pursued a disciplined policy is completely outrageous. Again, the Conservative party cannot tell us whether it supports a balanced budget—three and a half

  679
  years in opposition, four shadow Chancellors, lots of policy statements, and it cannot give us an answer to that simple question. That has been revealed this evening.
  Now, the four challenges that we face as a Government are these: first, to entrench a culture of low—
  Mr. Bercow rose—
  Mr. Brown: I have been very generous in giving way to the hon. Gentleman, who has exposed the fact that he does not do research for these occasions.
  The first challenge is to entrench a culture of stability and low inflation. That is why I believe that the whole House should be pleased that inflation is at its lowest for 30 years. Our second challenge is to seize the opportunity to build from the record 27.9 million men and women in work to a situation in which this country can achieve the goal of full employment.
  We should coach the hard to employ—the young under-25s. We should bring the number of single parents in work up to 70 per cent. over the next decade. We should give the same responsibilities and rights to the partners of the unemployed, both to seek work and to get help in doing so. We should do more to help the disabled, many of whom want the chance to get back to work, but who, over the past 20 years, were denied the right to work. We should have the same regime of rights and responsibilities for the long-term unemployed. None of that could be achieved if we did what the Opposition want to do—abolish the new deal. I hope that the Conservative party will think twice about what ought to have been a bipartisan consensus: we should have a new deal in which young people and the young unemployed have the chance to get work.
  The third challenge for our country is to build family prosperity—family prosperity for not just some but all our citizens. That is why we favour the working families tax credit, and why we will introduce a new children's tax credit.
  The Conservatives plan to abolish the working families tax credit. Even Ronald Reagan said that the equivalent in the United States was the best family measure for which he and his Administration had been responsible, and George W. Bush asked Republican senators and congressmen not to punish the poor by refusing to raise earned income tax credit. This, however, is a Conservative party so far to the right that the only policy on family prosperity that it is prepared to advance is a policy to abolish the working families tax credit, and the children's tax credit now also appears to be at risk.
  Mr. Gardiner: Under the children's tax credit, would not the benefit received by a family with one child increase from its 1997 level of £11.50 to £24.50? Is that not what would happen under this Government come next April?
  Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. In the case of millions of families, support for the first child, which was just over £11 when we came to power, could be as high as £24.50—even higher if one of our Budget proposals, which is out for consultation, is accepted. That represents a doubling of support for the first child of
  680
  millions of families over the time in which we have been in office. It is more than we promised in our manifesto. It means that a million children can be taken out of poverty; it also means that every family in the country, rich or poor, has benefited from our policy of giving more support to families bringing up very young children.
  Those are the issues on which we hope to make progress over the next year. What would the Conservatives have done? We would have been presented with the New Deal (Abolition) Bill, and the Working Families Tax Credit (Abolition) Bill. We might have been presented with the Children's Tax Credit (Abolition) Bill. As the shadow Chancellor has made clear, we would certainly have been presented with the Winter Allowance (Abolition) Bill. We would even have been presented with the Christmas Bonus (Abolition) Bill.
  What Christmas spirit would have been involved in telling pensioners that they would lose the Christmas bonus for which, in fact, a Conservative Government legislated in 1972? It is clear that the Conservatives have abandoned the Christmas spirit, and that there are no wise men around in their party.
  What about the free colour television licences from which 3 million pensioners currently benefit? The shadow Chancellor says—I think I quote him correctly—that it is a gimmick that patronises pensioners. He says, "We do not think we should patronise pensioners. We are going to get rid of the free licence, instead of patronising them by saying that we will hand out little dribs and drabs."
  Mr. Portillo: No, we are not.
  Mr. Brown: Is the right hon. Gentleman confirming that the Conservatives would not get rid of the free licence? [Interruption.] It appears that he is not.
  The shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury has a big interest in the matter. I recall that in 1997 he was a signatory to a Bill to abolish the exemption from payment for licences. He and his colleagues did not say that it was patronising or a gimmick, however. The present shadow Economic Secretary to the Treasury, then a Back Bencher, said:
  For those over 75, the television is a particularly important part of life.
  He proposed to
  exempt all those aged 75 and over from having to pay anything at all.
  The hon. Gentleman even went to his constituency newspaper, the West Sussex Gazette, which featured the headline "MP's crusade to abolish TV licences for the over-75s". He said that his Bill would correct the unfairness, and that he had met large numbers of pensioners aged 75 and over for whom the television licence was a substantial burden and worry. He went on to say that for the over-75s, the television licence was the main conduit to communication, information and entertainment. He thought that the top priority should be a simple and tangible measure that was directed and cost-effective and which brought help to 85 per cent. of the retired population who were in real need.
  Who sponsored the Bill in the House of Commons? It was the shadow Chief Secretary, the hon. Member for West Dorset; the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley), who is in charge of the election manifesto

  681
  that will commit the Conservative party to abolishing the free television licence; the senior vice-chairman of the Conservative party, the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins); the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Ruffley), who was an adviser to the previous Chancellor and is part of the Opposition's Treasury committee; one of the Opposition's health spokesmen, the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman); one of their education spokesmen, the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady); and another vice-chairman, the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Mr. Prior).
  There were so many on the bandwagon that hardly any room was left for the band. However, having gone one way, the bandwagon is now going in the opposite direction. We said that we could not trust the Conservative party on tax, but we cannot even trust it on television licences.
  A silence has descended on the Opposition Benches. To be fair to the shadow Chancellor, he could not sponsor the Bill because he was not in the House at the time.
  Mr. Portillo: The Chancellor does himself no favours by promoting those distortions. He is not enhancing his credibility and does no credit to politics. He knows perfectly well that the Conservative party proposes to allow retired people to have a much higher weekly income. Single pensioners under the age of 75 would receive an extra £9.50 a week, and the payment for a couple over the age of 75 would increase to £16.10 a week. That would all be exempted from tax. [Interruption.] Yes, it would. We would adjust the tax rates and the minimum income guarantee so that pensioners lose nothing. Why is the Chancellor of the Exchequer afraid of honest debate? Why must he distort everything?
  I do not wish to test your patience, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I want to make it clear that we do not propose to abolish the working families tax credit. We propose to pay it to the parent who has care. That is a much more socially responsible policy, which should commend itself to the Labour party. By the way, in the process, we shall also save business £100 million a year in administration costs.
  Mr. Brown: That is the abolition of the working families tax credit. The right hon. Gentleman proposes to replace it with the old family credit, with its high marginal tax rates, its low take-up and all the work incentive problems that arose from it. The working families tax credit takes an additional 1 million people out of poverty, which in turn removes 1.2 million children from poverty. I would welcome the right hon. Gentleman saying that he would keep the working families tax credit, but he is actually saying—he should make this clear to the House—that he would abolish it and replace it with family credit, which is the old system that was paid direct to the mother and not through the employer.
  Mr. Portillo: Our proposal is that the working families tax credit should be paid to the parent who has care. It is a sensible policy.
  Mr. Brown: The working families tax credit is what it is because it is paid through the pay packet. That is
  682
  exactly what it was designed to do and we have made it possible for many people to return to work. If the right hon. Gentleman says that he would keep the working families tax credit, that is one thing and, as I said, I would welcome it, but he is actually saying that he would replace it by returning to the old family credit system.
  Many people are £50 a week better off under the working families tax credit because we have devised a system that has a minimum income guarantee, which at the moment is £214 a week. People do not have to pay tax until they receive £260. If the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to guarantee that the working families tax credit will remain in existence and be paid through the wage packet at the rates that we are outlining, that is one thing, but he seems to be describing its abolition and replacement by family credit.
  Mr. Portillo rose—
  Mr. Brown: The right hon. Gentleman must answer a straight question. Would he keep the working families tax credit in the same form in which it was designed: that is, paid through the wage packet? Will he also answer a question about pensions? If he is to guarantee that people would not have to pay tax on the addition that he proposes on the basic pension, how much would that cost?
  Mr. Portillo: The working families tax credit has been badly designed by the Chancellor. Many children do not get the money because it goes to the parent in work, who is not necessarily the parent with care. I believe that that is a bad system, and we will reform it. Furthermore, it is a bad system because it costs business £100 million, and business should not be the provider of benefits on the Government's behalf.
  Mr. Brown: The right hon. Gentleman is wrong on the factual point, and I hope that when he gets the information he will withdraw his allegation about what has happened as a result of the creation of the working families tax credit. As for burdens on business, perhaps he will explain his proposal to privatise the industrial injuries benefit without proper compensation having been announced for businesses. He says that he wants to take a burden off business, but then he wants to put one on through the privatisation of the industrial injuries benefit.
  The right hon. Gentleman has still not answered my question. If his pensions proposal is serious, and he guarantees that no pensioner would have to pay any tax on the additional money that he proposes to give, the Inland Revenue would have to make complex arrangements and that would cost a substantial sum. He should tell us what that sum is likely to be.
  As we go through the Conservative party's proposals, the amount of money available is eroded from the £16 billion. The right hon. Gentleman cannot even find the £5 billion that he is talking about. We know that that money is not available for single parents. We have calculated that he would have to put every single parent with a child over 11 back to work, otherwise he could not secure the savings that he talks about.
  The Conservative party will have to go back to the drawing board one day. Its proposals are vindictive towards single parents, and assume that a newly widowed mother would have to go back to work, and that mothers

  683
  with sick children would be forced into work. The only way in which the Conservatives could get that level of benefit savings would be by putting every mother with a child over 11 back to work. They know perfectly well what mood they want to create in the country on that issue, and they have not calculated their figures.
  Mr. Portillo rose—
  Mr. Brown: I shall give way only if the shadow Chancellor is prepared to answer some questions. He should tell us, as I have asked him to do, the tax cost of exempting pensioners. He says that he would exempt pensioners from taxation on the additional pension rights that he proposes to give presumably to both the richest and the poorest pensioners—any pensioner who pays tax. He must have a costing for that, so perhaps he will give it to the House now, because the longer this goes on, the clearer it is that the shadow Treasury Front-Bench team has not thought out its ideas or its detailed proposals.
  Mr. Portillo: The cost of paying the benefit to single parents whose children are over 11 would be £725 million, and we have said that after three years we would be able to save £500 million. So the proposal is not based on everyone going to work, as the Chancellor says. It is based on a realistic assessment of what can be achieved after three years. It is a proper policy, because social research shows that children above the age of 11 and teenagers are much more likely to look for and find work if they come from a household in which the parent has looked for work and has hopefully found it.
  We shall set out all our tax proposals in the new year, and we shall give the Government a good run for their money. Those tax proposals will be highly attractive to groups in society who have been vindictively punished by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  Mr. Brown: The right hon. Gentleman is revealing more and more as we go on. He says that he could save £500 million from single parents, and that the cost of benefits for single parents would be £725 million. He referred to his proposal on the working families tax credit. Either that tax credit will not exist under the Conservatives, or that money will have to be paid to single parents who are in work. His failure to include any costing for the working families tax credit shows that either he intends to abolish it completely—I do not think he would abolish it completely, because he proposes to replace it with family credit, which also has a cost—or he refuses to count it as a cost. The truth is that the average benefit saving from getting a single parent back to work is about £60 a week—just over £3,000 a year. If that is divided by £500 million, it would need more than 150,000 single parents with children over 11 to recoup that money in the year about which the right hon. Gentleman is talking. In other words, he is assuming, through his own mistakes, that every single parent will be forced back into work. He is assuming that mothers with sick children and even the 4,000 widows will be forced back to work, perhaps within only a few weeks of their husband's death.
  At some time, the Conservatives will have to face up to the fact that, if they take single parents off benefit and get them into work and if they keep a form of family
  684
  credit, which they say they would, they will have to pay out some money for that. Therefore, the saving would not come just by writing off the benefit cost. They would have to provide the tax credits or the family credit. The right hon. Gentleman is now giving us the impression that he has not even bothered to cost that in his figures.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Brown: I am afraid that I cannot give way any more.
  The Conservatives have revealed today that they cannot tell us their fiscal rule. They cannot tell us—it was quite a simple question for previous Conservative Administrations—whether they believe in a balanced budget. I have put that straightforward and simple question to the shadow Chancellor. It was answered by previous Administrations, but he has refused to answer. In my view, the right hon. Gentleman has confirmed that he intends to abolish the working families tax credit and replace it with family credit. He has not properly costed the single parents savings and he has not costed the new deal savings, which were announced a few days ago. He has not costed properly the savings from privatising industrial injuries benefit, and, as Lord Skidelsky said in the other place, he has made huge assumptions about savings that can come from cutting bureaucracy here and there and from cutting fraud, which we are already doing far more successfully than he ever did when he was Secretary of State for Employment.
  Our agenda is to entrench stability in the economy by pursuing a policy of low inflation and working with strong and disciplined fiscal rules. Our policy is to move this country towards full employment by building on the 28 million people who are now in jobs—the highest figure the country has ever achieved. We aim to build on the working families tax credit with the children's tax credit and to provide far more generous child benefit than we ever saw under the previous Government. We aim to build family prosperity, not just for some, but for all. Our policy is to build the investment that is necessary for our public services. We have had no answer today from the Conservative party about whether it would fund the necessary investment for transport and other services.
  The shadow Chancellor has said that he wants a mixed economy in health care. Let us fight out this issue. We do not know about the charges. He says that he is not talking about general practitioners, but whether it is hospitals or tax relief for private medical insurance—money that could go to the health service—or whether it is the shadow Chief Secretary's plan, with the right hon. Member for Wokingham, for credits to be paid to people who use private care, let the Conservatives tell us the truth about their privatisation plans.
  The Conservatives must face up to the central fact that they brought this country boom and bust in the late 1980s and early 1990s. That happened because they did not work to disciplined fiscal rules, and they have none. The Tory Government refused to invest in the supply side of the economy—education and infrastructure—which is essential to sustain growth. They did not have monetary discipline and they are now reluctant and unclear converts to the independence of the Bank of England. On the basis of one year's surplus they promised tax cuts for every year, which they knew they could not afford.

  685
  All those mistakes are being made again. The Conservative party has a black hole in its public spending figures. However, it has an even bigger problem because it was the party of boom and bust and it still is. It has no fiscal rules, no investment in the supply side of the economy and no monetary discipline. It will make the mistake of promising tax cuts every year on the basis of a surplus in one year. The Conservatives are making the same mistakes from which they should have learned. The shadow Chancellor was Chief Secretary to the Treasury when many of those mistakes were being made and he is now the shadow Chancellor presiding over a Treasury team that is repeating them. He has not been able to answer any of my questions. The Conservative party is not fit for government and it has not even begun to learn how to be an Opposition. The country will pass its verdict in due course.
  5.55 pm
  Mr. John Major: If I had any doubts about whether this was the last Queen's Speech debate in which I would have the privilege of speaking before leaving the House at the next election, the Chancellor has removed them over the past 40 minutes or so. The Government have been generous in allowing six days to debate a Gracious Speech with so little in it. I now know that that was because they wanted to debate the Opposition's alleged programme rather than their own policies. As we come to the end of this Parliament, the Queen's Speech, which we should have been debating, is more of a shop window than a programme for action. It contains a small number of measures, most of which every hon. Member knows will not be enacted in this Parliament.
  The Government took office with a large majority and an enormous amount of public goodwill. They faced a depleted Opposition who had suffered a painful election defeat. Given all that, it is extraordinary how little of real worth has been achieved in those remarkable circumstances. In addition to all that—I will return to this later—the Chancellor inherited an economy that was in better shape than that inherited by any incoming Chancellor for a long time. In similar, although not identical, circumstances, between 1945 and 1950 Mr. Attlee did so much more with his majority. We may not agree with what he did, but he made remarkable changes, out of any comparison with what has been achieved in this Parliament. The same can be said of my right hon. and noble Friend Baroness Thatcher between 1979 and 1983 and perhaps even more so between 1983 and 1987. Although I voted positively against the Labour Government with great will, even I could see that there were attractive aspects to some of what they said they would do. They were going to think the unthinkable, but they have scarcely thought at all. The Minister who was going to think the unthinkable was soon out-thought and out of Government as well.
  The Government's fondest boast is their management of the economy. With all the regularity of a man who has convinced himself and is seeking to convince everyone else, the Chancellor tells us that he has avoided boom and bust—and thus far he has—and has remained faithful to prudence. Prudence has become famous. In fact, in his last Budget he rather strayed from prudence and I suspect that, far from straying, he will be downright unfaithful to prudence when he delivers his new Budget and tells us of
  686
  his plans to bribe the electorate with their own money. Poor old prudence has served her time adequately but is about to be ditched in favour of a hussy who is willing to distribute her assets in every conceivable direction.
  To preserve the tattered reputation of prudence, and perhaps the Chancellor, the right hon. Gentleman has hinted at targeting tax cuts. We will have none of the crudeness of giving everybody their money back. He has said that they will be targeted, and I bet they will. They will be targeted on every voter who might be persuaded to put the Chancellor back into the Exchequer. As the Chancellor is keen to put matters on the record, let it be recorded that even he smiled at the prospect of what he might do.
  I find it ironic, although perhaps not amusing, that if we believe what is said, the economy is to be at the centre of the Government's re-election campaign. That is disingenuous at best and downright dishonest at worst. Despite the earlier difficulties to which he alludes so frequently, the Chancellor knows that in 1997, he inherited a growing economy with low inflation, falling unemployment and a rapidly declining fiscal deficit.
  The Government can claim accurately that, thus far, they have not yet wrecked that economy, although cause and effect in economics is often lengthy and the substantial tax increases that the Chancellor has levied will threaten our competitiveness, as will the Government's agreement to some of the anti-competitive measures from the European Union and their tendency to advocate regulation. It is difficult to get rid of regulation. I do not complain about some aspects of regulation. I acknowledge that we had great difficulty in getting rid of it, too.
  Mr. Andrew Miller: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Major: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I shall make a little progress.
  The Chancellor, of course, knows all that. He does not openly admit it, but he is not foolish; he knows all that. That is why he talks regularly—he talked about it again today—of his economic achievements: so as to fix in the public mind the fact that he, and he alone, may be responsible for the benign economic circumstances that currently exist. That is why boom and bust in the 1980s—he almost invariably says the 1980s, although seeing me sitting here he added the early part of the 1990s—features so much in his vocabulary. However, even the Chancellor at his most slippery, and that—I mean it as a compliment, for he is a politician—is very slippery indeed, knows that the economy has been benign and growing for eight years, which is an almost unprecedented post-war record. When in opposition, he and his colleagues opposed many of the measures that brought that about. He now advocates many of those measures as prudent for the present and the future.
  Perhaps I might remind the Chancellor, as it seems to have slipped his and the Prime Minister's mind, that it was the Conservative party that created the economy that he inherited in 1997. Masters of spin he and his colleagues

  687
  may be, but attempting to air brush out of history economic growth from the early 1990s onwards is pushing their talent for obfuscation just a touch too far.
  Liz Blackman: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Major: Let me make a little progress. I shall then give way to the hon. Lady.
  I remind the Chancellor of where we were on 1 May 1997, as opposed to the fiction of where we were. Interest rates were at 6 per cent. GDP growth was at 3.5 per cent. Inflation was at 2.6 per cent. and unemployment was on a very sharp downward track. Thank goodness it has remained on that downward track since then. The Chancellor can take some credit for that. Over the first 18 months, the impact of what had been done before kept it on a downward track. In the past 18 months, he can take some personal credit for that.
  The tax burden in 1997—we heard about the 22 Tory tax rises time and again—was only marginally above that of 1990 and substantially below that which applies now. I shall not bandy figures about. There are various ways in which one can calculate them, but, whichever way one calculates them, the tax increases between 1997 and today are larger in total than the tax increases between 1990 and 1997. The talk of 22 tax increases was entirely bogus, for it utterly neglected the parallel tax reductions, which made a substantial difference to the net position.
  Perhaps the Leader of the House, who will wind up the six-day debate, will tell us—I do not know the figure and I have not yet managed to obtain it—how many tax rises have been introduced since 1997. If she is in a frank mood, and I hope that she is—I greatly admire her leadership; she is a fine Leader of the House—perhaps she can add to her reputation by telling us how many of the tax increases since 1997 were announced by the Chancellor in the House in the Budget, as opposed to being slipped out in a post-Budget press release from the Treasury. I would thank her for that and welcome it.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Major: I think that the hon. Member for Erewash (Liz Blackman) was first.
  Liz Blackman: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that, on record to the Select Committee on the Treasury, the Governor of the Bank of England clearly stated that interest rates should have risen well before the Government came into office in 1997, but for political reasons that did not happen? Does he recall that, in 1998, in the teeth of the Asian crisis, the Opposition forecast recession? It was the good management of the Government that steered the economy on a fair course.
  Mr. Major: I have a feeling that the state of the world economy, notwithstanding the enormously good activities at Millbank, stretches a little further than the direct responsibilities of the Chancellor. I may be mistaken about that. It may be that Mr. Greenspan has very little to do with the American economy, that the American economy has very little to do with us and that the
  688
  European economy does not affect us in the slightest, but I ask the hon. Lady to consider that it is just possible that world events interfere even with the activities of a Chancellor who inherits a benign economy.
  I come a little closer to the tax point. I have said before and I repeat: we did put up taxes. We put up taxes in a recession to help to protect individuals and our national accounts from the economic downturn. I seem to recall that, at the time, the Chancellor and his colleagues demanded that the then Government did precisely that to protect people who were vulnerable in their constituencies. It was right. It was very painful. Conservative Governments do not like to put up taxes. They do not wish to. They did not intend to, but the social requirement of protecting people in that recession was necessary.
  That is in some contrast to what has happened since the 1997 election. Since then, the Government, first, have increased taxes by more than we did and, secondly, have increased them in a benign economic climate rather than in a recession. That is a sharply different proposition.
  Mr. Matthew Taylor: The right hon. Gentleman speaks with his usual eloquence and charm. He referred earlier to the trend in unemployment continuing on a downward path. There was another trend: the trend in projected taxation, which his Chancellor had announced and was printed in the Red Book. That showed taxation continuing to rise after the general election as a proportion of GDP—it was slightly above the present Government's projection—to close the very deficit that the Government have closed in that way.
  Mr. Major: I give the hon. Gentleman exactly the same answer that the Chancellor would give him. If I had said to the Chancellor that the Red Book projections show taxation rising in future, he would have said, "These are stylised projections based on unchanged policies." Of course, they change with each successive Budget. That is why I referred to the tax burden as it is now, not as it is projected by the Chancellor in future. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman both for his kind words and for letting me make that particular point.
  Is there scope for tax reductions now? The Chancellor clearly thinks not and had much pre-election fun rehearsing his hustings speeches in village halls throughout the country, but there is clearly scope for tax reduction to reverse the Chancellor's raiding of the net personal incomes of millions over the past three years.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Portillo), the shadow Chancellor, is searching for savings throughout Whitehall. Good luck to him. It is an extremely good thing for him to look for, but, although it is wise always to see where prudent savings could be made, he could justify his proposed tax cuts simply by saying that he is reversing just a part of the sheer scale of the economically damaging increases that the Chancellor has piled upon the electorate in the past three years.
  Some time ago, I heard the Prime Minister—not my favourite programme, Members can understand, but I listen to him from time to time—praising our low-tax economy. Unfortunately, I must have missed the bit where he praised his predecessors for creating it, and the bit where he repented his Government's smash-and-grab raids on people's pockets. The plain truth is that the

  689
  Chancellor, a very agreeable man, has had his hands in the public's pockets more often than the public have had their hands in their own pockets.
  In 1997, taxes in the UK broadly, because one can calculate it in different ways, were 6 per cent. below those of our main European competitors. That gap, important for our competitiveness, has shrunk to 2 per cent. and may shrink further because Germany, France and Italy are all embarking on programmes to cut their taxes.
  That is potentially important for our competitiveness, our inward investment and for our jobs, on a day when, sadly, many jobs have been lost at Luton. Tax cutting is not simply a matter of putting more money into the pockets of those who have some money already. In my judgment, and I dare say that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Chelsea, the weight of tax reductions should be at the lower end of the scale.
  It is not greed that demands tax. To a certain extent there is an economic justification for tax reductions, quite apart from the fact that we are not giving people something, but simply taking less of their money away from them.
  The Chancellor's move over the past three years from fiscal Scrooge to fiscal Micawber is by no means his only policy change. Once upon a time, as I recall, he was proud to be represented as being in favour of quite early entry to the euro. I understand from his aides, that now, to judge from briefings against the Foreign Secretary and the Northern Ireland Secretary, he is not in favour. Of course, those briefings could be personal rather than policy—one never knows with the Cabinet—
  Mr. MacShane: The right hon. Gentleman knows about that.
  Mr. Major: Indeed I do, and that is exactly why I say it. However, it is nearly Christmas, so let us make the generous assumption that it is policy that activates the Chancellor and not a wish to undermine his colleagues, which is always an unattractive trait in senior politicians.
  The Chancellor now favours delay in entry to the euro. The time is not yet right. One might perhaps characterise his position as wait and see. I think that he is right about that. When they were in opposition, the Prime Minister and the Chancellor roundly condemned that policy, but in government they have warmly embraced it. Indeed, wait and see appears now to have become a rather venerable old gent much loved by nearly all political parties.
  The Government wait and see. The Opposition wait and see—albeit for a rather longer time. Entry into the euro rightly provokes great debate. Unfortunately, for many years it has been inadequate debate. Some hon. Members see a new currency as a child of Beelzebub while others regard it as a benign inevitability. It is, in fact, neither. Personally, I disagree with both the "go in now" brigade and the "go in never" brigade. We should measure United Kingdom political and economic interests, which are not yet clear—the Chancellor is right about that—and make a decision only when they are. It could take some time. After the election I shall not be in the House to be told
  690
  that I am wrong, but I do not believe that any Government will enter the euro in the next Parliament and in my view nor should they. I would actively oppose premature entry.
  Mr. Nigel Beard: What is the difference between the policy that the right hon. Gentleman has just outlined for entry to the euro and the established policy of the present Government?
  Mr. Major: The established policy of the present Government is very familiar to me for it was mine long before it was theirs, so it is hardly surprising if I have a certain degree of affection for waiting to see whether it is the right policy before deciding upon it. A more accurate question might have been to invite the Chancellor to explain why, two years after the euro came into being, he still adopts the policy that he criticised so harshly when I sat on the Government Front Bench three years before the euro.
  Mr. Miller: He is not listening.
  Mr. Major: Of course he is not listening; he does not want to hear this and that is perfectly all right.
  Mr. Miller: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Major: The hon. Gentleman will probably defend the Chancellor, but I do not think that the Chancellor needs defending. He is big enough to look after himself.
  Mr. Miller: Just for completeness, so that we know exactly where the right hon. Gentleman stands, is he in favour of a referendum so that the people can decide?
  Mr. Major: I actually said, in government, that there should be a referendum on the euro. Once again, the present Government gave that commitment because they inherited it from me. That is my position on a referendum, but if in the next Parliament there is concurrence that there will be no decision to enter, it is painfully evident that there will be no referendum.
  The Government are allegedly preparing for entry if—and it is a big if—they judge it to be in our national interest. If that is the case, and if their position is not simply a public relations posture, they must consider some serious questions. However, they have not given us their judgment on those serious questions. I do not know the Chancellor's view on the debate. For example, how does he think that the pound will fare in future alongside the dollar, the euro and the yen? Does he worry about the very large capital outflows from the eurozone to the dollar zone? Why does he think that it is happening? What does he think is happening within the eurozone following the birth of the new currency, albeit too early and certainly in the wrong conditions—not remotely the conditions that were agreed at Maastricht some years ago?
  It seems to me, as an observer, that the euro has accelerated structural change in continental Europe. If that is so, we need to consider whether the proposed tax reforms in Germany, accompanied by the proposed pension reforms there and the anticipated balanced budget there in about four years' time if the Germans hit their targets, will affect us and if so how?

  691
  We also need to consider the implication—as it is critical to the United Kingdom—of the huge growth of mergers and acquisitions in France especially, but also across Europe. If the Government are leading the debate on the euro, what do they think about all those and 50 other issues that the Chancellor and I and all my right hon. and hon. Friends could easily set out as being crucial for discussion and consideration before any rational judgment should seriously be taken to take us into a single currency?
  Some oppose it on principle and others do not. Most people probably wish to know whether it will have a benign or a malign effect on the British economy. We cannot know that without a proper debate on all those issues. I wish that we were having that debate and I wish that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would lead it
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer is better placed than any other politician to lead that debate, so what does he think? How does the Chancellor think the unification of the continental financial markets will impact on our own financial markets and what will it mean for future policy? Here is another illustration of an issue that is far beyond the often rather superficial arguments for and against the euro and one that we genuinely need to examine and consider before we make a decision. It is all relevant to our national interest. Where is the debate on all this so that we can make a rational judgment?
  We have time. As I said earlier, I do not favour entry in the next few years. I do not think that it would be wise and I would not vote for it. In fact, I would oppose entry in the next few years, but we have to consider that the world around us may be changing and we need to look at that changing world and judge what it means for us.
  Mr. MacShane: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I have been listening with great interest to what is perhaps his valedictory speech. I congratulate him on his remarks because it is rare indeed to hear from the Opposition a considered discussion of the problem of euro entry. Perhaps he should address his remarks to those on the Opposition Front Bench and to his own party leadership because until we have a rational discussion across the Chamber and the nation that is not dictated by The Sun and the Daily Mail and their venomous anti-Europeanism, we cannot have a discussion at all.
  Mr. Major: When I hear the hon. Gentleman praising me, I feel the slide of a knife in my ribs.
  Mr. Alex Salmond: Is it a familiar feeling?
  Mr. Major: Of course not. It is not remotely familiar. That is a disgraceful suggestion.
  The other point that I would make in response to the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) is that, although I may be terribly old fashioned, I came into the Chamber today believing that the debate was to be about the Government's programme and policies. I did not think that it would be about the Opposition's programme, or about any distorted version of that programme that it may be convenient for the Chancellor to allege might be implemented in certain circumstances.
  692
  The Chancellor, rather like Fanlight Fanny, looks at our programme through the wrong end of a telescope, on a very dark night, standing on a stool, and through a clouded window. Anything that the right hon. Gentleman says about our policies we may routinely assume to be the opposite of the reality. There was much evidence of that today, and the right hon. Gentleman is very good at it. He is able to say that which is not so with such conviction that he convinces himself that it is so—but it is not. The Conservative party that I joined—I look forward to campaigning for it in the next general election, in the hope and belief that it will win—bears no relation to the party painted in such lurid colours by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  I see that the Chancellor is smiling. He may well smile: he has done a good afternoon's work, and enjoyed himself jolly well. He has not defended his own policies, but has talked about ours instead. He did not get past page 3 of the prepared speech given to him by his advisers. He was also able to use up 49 minutes, which was necessary because not too many Labour Members are waiting to speak later on.
  The Chancellor has had a really super afternoon, which he is thoroughly enjoying. He has safely moved on and ditched poor old Prudence, who was useful once but is no longer. We must continue to remind the right hon. Gentleman of Prudence, because she will yet be an embarrassment to him when, in the very near future, he comes to prepare his Budget. Prudence may be the only person in the country who will not be given a tax handout of some sort when the Chancellor addresses the House on Budget day.
  I return, briefly and finally, to the question of the euro. My prediction is not shared by many people, but I stand to be judged on it. It seems to be more likely than not that, over the next year, the euro will recover in value against the dollar, the yen and sterling. It is worth noting, in passing, that that will help sustain the price stability that was the objective demanded of the European central bank by the Maastricht treaty. The treaty was often misunderstood, but that provision was absolutely clear.
  All such issues, and the conclusions that follow from them, are material to our consideration of whether sterling should one day—although not in the near future—enter the eurozone. In a mature debate on the future of our economy and currency, all those issues would be aired.
  I was rather disappointed that the Chancellor should have aired other issues and spoken rather intolerantly about our policies, rather than address an issue that he hopes will go away in the period before and during the next election. I can tell him that it will not go away, as it is of abiding interest to far too many people for that to be possible. However, no mature debate is being held. The current Government have enjoyed a massive majority in the House of Commons for four years and, frankly, it is time that such a debate were held.
  The hon. Member for Rotherham said that this might be my valedictory speech. He may wish it to be but, unless the election is held very speedily, I promise him that it is not going to be my valediction. However, it is certainly my valedictory contribution to a debate on a Queen's Speech. With your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I shall use the latitude that the debate allows to say something about the House of Commons and the way in which it operates these days.

  693
  The House of Commons has always had a certain mythology about its past. I have been here for only 20-odd years, but I am in no doubt that the complexion of the House has changed in that time, to the disbenefit of democracy and of the nation at large. It is not good for the House that only a handful of enthusiasts take part even in significant debates, and that it should be so often bypassed when statements come to be made.
  Moreover, although all Governments have used guillotines, it is not good for the House when placing them at the necks of innocent pieces of legislation becomes too frequent and callous. It is not in the interests of the House of Commons that we should be able to go in the No Lobby, on a day when we happen to be here, and vote on issues that we do not understand after debates that we did not attend.
  None of what I have set out is in the interests of democracy. If we were really interested in re-establishing democracy, there are things that we could do. There are many ways to reform the House of Lords other than the way in which it has been reformed, and they should have been implemented. Standing Committees of both Houses should be used to examine treaties—such as Nice, for example, or the Maastricht treaty of many years ago—both before and after they are negotiated. Standing Committees could also be used to look at the creeping constitutional change that is undermining the House. Those matters are what we need to be looking at.
  I shall conclude with a prediction that gives me no pleasure at all but which I fear will be realised. It is that turnout at the next general election will be very sharply down, and that it will be below the level recorded in any general election for a very long time. No hon. Member ought to want that to happen, and it is not something to be proud of. If such matters were in the forefront of the Government's mind and covered in the legislation proposed for the few weeks available before the election is called for late April or early May, perhaps the Queen's Speech would have been better and more relevant than the one that the Chancellor nearly debated this afternoon.
  6.26 pm
  Mr. Nigel Beard: In assessing the economy today, it is useful to consider the history of economic policy in Britain over the past few years.
  In his great work on the English constitution, Walter Bagehot observed that civilisations ultimately decline because they fail to understand the institutions that they have created. For the whole of the 20th century and much of the 19th century, industrial economies seemed to be just such institutions, and a lack of understanding of them could indeed endanger the democracies that nurtured them.
  John Maynard Keynes was the intellectual critic of the prevailing laissez-faire economics of the early 20th century. His view was that to avoid instability it was essential for central Government to regulate demand. Thus, as the trade cycle carried an economy to recession, Governments should spend to create the demand to counteract it. As the trade cycle moved up to a peak, Governments should restrain demand to avoid overheating the economy and prevent subsequent inflation as too much money chased too few goods.
  Reginald Maudling, at the beginning of the 1960s, attempted to create growth in the economy simply by creating more demand. It did not work, but resulted in the
  694
  economic crisis that faced the Wilson Government in the 1960s. Likewise—but even more so—in the early 1970s, Anthony Barber thought that by increasing demand he could cause the British economy to grow irrespective of its ability to supply. Supply did not follow but increased oil prices did. As a result, one inflationary pressure reinforced the other to create the appalling inflation of the 1970s. The greatest casualty of this era was Keynesian economics which was presumed—falsely, in my view—to lead automatically to inflation.
  As a reaction to this excess came Thatcherism and Reaganomics, which, in essence, were a return to laissez-faire economics. The trouble was that there was a return to the overriding weakness of laissez-faire economics—a propensity to instability.
  Mrs. Thatcher became Prime Minister in 1979 and, immediately, taxation was increased at a time when the economy was moving towards recession. So deep was the recession that resulted that 25 per cent. of UK manufacturing industry disappeared. That was some mistake.
  The world economy recovered as oil prices declined, so much so that, in the second half of the 1980s, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, Nigel Lawson, gave generous tax concessions. The inevitable boom in demand happened, which the economy could not satisfy. Inflation occurred, and high interest rates followed from that. The result was that the economy went bust in the early 1990s, as it had in the early 1980s, the early 1970s and the early 1960s—on all those occasions under a Conservative Administration.
  The economy going bust was not just an economic abstraction; it meant that many small companies went bust. It meant that there were 3 million unemployed, in contrast to 1 million today. It meant negative equity so families could not afford to move house and were in dire distress because of their finances. It meant interest rates of 15 per cent.—and an average of 10 per cent. over the period of Conservative Government—compared with an average of 6 per cent. during this Government's period in office.
  As the 1997 election drew near, an attempt was made to disguise that record with a Government spending spree. It did not work electorally, but the incoming Labour Government were left with a gap of £29 billion in the public finances that had to be made good. Had there not been a period of putting the public accounts right, even at the expense of public services, the International Monetary Fund would have been on the doorstep, and Labour's cherished five-year programme could have been vetoed by the financial markets.
  It is to the great credit of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor that he had the understanding, foresight and tenacity to deal with that complex situation. Indeed, he has done more than that. He has introduced a new philosophy for managing the economy, which avoids the regular boom and bust of Conservative Administrations.
  I have heard Opposition Members asking sarcastically whether Labour's claim to have abolished boom and bust means that it has abolished the trade cycle, too. Of course, it does not mean that. What has been stopped is a form of economic management that increased taxation in the trough of the cycle, which deepened recession, and reduced taxes at the top of the cycle, creating a boom.

  695
  Conservative economic policy succeeded in magnifying the undulations of the trade cycle into the familiar boom and bust.
  The other characteristic of 18 years of Tory economic policy was a reckless neglect of public investment. The result is the rundown appearance of hospitals, the poor maintenance of schools and the total neglect of public transport.
  The artificial Treasury impediment on public investment, known as the Ryrie rules, has been abolished in favour of new fiscal rules, namely the golden rule and the sustainable investment rule. These rules facilitate public investment while ensuring that interest payments on debt never become the millstone that this Government inherited, at a time when debt interest payments were greater than the whole education budget.
  The attention of Departments to the value of capital assets and their maintenance will be focused by the recent introduction of resource accounting. That will ensure that maintenance and depreciation are properly taken into account in determining budgets.
  The Opposition have made much of the fact that growth in the economy was forecast, in the July spending review, to be 2.5 per cent. in real terms, but that total Government spending will increase by 3.3 per cent. They therefore say that the spending programme is not sustainable and that they will cut it. However, the July spending review makes it clear that current spending will grow at the same rate as the growth in the economy, and that growth over and above that is capital spending, which will satisfy the golden rule and the sustainable investment rule as it doubles over the next three years.
  If the Tory party were to cut the growth in public spending but not cut spending on health or education, as they propose, they would have to cut capital spending that is vital, particularly for the improvement of public transport. Tory policy can only mean continuing dilapidation of public buildings and increasing congestion in our cities, as well as likely cuts in health and education, compared with the Government's programme.
  The public sector's record on controlling large capital projects is poor, partly because such projects come along only infrequently for any one part of the public sector. Consequently, experience in design and project management is not built up. Unless that problem is faced, there is a danger that too high a proportion of increased investment will not give value for money. That is a major justification for projects to be undertaken as some form of public-private partnership. The private partner should have expertise derived from experience in similar projects, and so be in a better position to ensure performance and to shoulder the risks of delay and overspending. After all, one cannot shake off the fact that the Jubilee line extension, under different project management arrangements, was £1.5 billion over budget and 18 months late.
  In the past, public finance initiative projects tended to be justified because they avoided public borrowing. Under the new fiscal rules, that is no longer necessary. Now, the overwhelming argument for PFI or public-private partnership schemes is that they offer risk reduction in the capital project while leaving subsequent operational control in the public sector.
  696
  The Government's management of the economy is a triumph. It brings to an end a century of flawed or uncomprehending macro-economic policy and successfully launches us into a new century with a new political and economic understanding.
  Mr. Bercow: The hon. Gentleman just referred to the Government's triumph. Does he regard it as part of that triumph that the savings ratio has been more than halved since the Government came into office?
  Mr. Beard: Few people in the pubs and clubs of Bexleyheath and Crayford speak of the savings ratio. However, there are many who speak of the advantages of the new deal, of the fact that they are in jobs, of the working families tax credit and of the minimum wage.
  Our future depends on our mobilising the abilities of a well-educated, highly trained and well-paid work force so that Britain can compete in the world on the basis of creative design and innovative science and technology.
  As the Conservatives, driven by pseudo-nationalism and xenophobia, become the Jehovah's Witnesses of British politics, British business becomes increasingly confident about new Labour's vision of Britain's economic future.
  The alternative is to compete using low wages and minimal employment conditions, to out-sweat the sweatshops of Asia. That is the Conservative vision, if such a demeaning prospect can be dignified by the word "vision". That is why they originally opposed the minimum wage, minimum holiday entitlements and legislation on fairness at work. That is why our state schools, universities, and research and development facilities were allowed to decline disastrously and why, even now, the Conservatives would abolish the new deal training scheme.
  Britain has contributed immensely towards the shape and substance of the modern world through science, technology, art, literature, commerce, administration, law and democracy. Those days are not over. The frontiers of knowledge and understanding are being pushed further and further into new territory, with Britain to the fore. That is where our future lies. Britain has a distinctive culture and a resourceful people of great ingenuity and talent. We need a Government who can bring out the best in every citizen. This Government are doing that, and long may they continue.
  6.39 pm
  Mr. Matthew Taylor: The debate opened with two speeches, the first of which showed clearly that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has every intention of remaining Chancellor after the general election, and—perhaps more important—that he has every intention of being leader of his party after that. The second—an attempt to present an alternative policy from the Conservatives—showed that, although the shadow Chancellor may have ruled out publicly that he wants to be leader of the Conservative party, he ruled out rather more clearly today any possibility that he would be the next Chancellor. Indeed, it is all too evident that he does not believe that he will be the next Chancellor; he makes no real effort to make his proposals add up. I shall return to that point.
  I have some comments on the state of the economy that faces us. After something of an economic history lesson, the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford

  697
  (Mr. Beard) suggested that there had been a transformation and that we were set fair for the future. It is always unwise, when considering an economy, to assume that some new vista has been reached—where all will be permanently well because the golden key to economic management has been found.
  The Chancellor is doing a good job. Earlier in the debate, he asked what fiscal rules the Liberal Democrats believed that we should follow. The answer is simple: the fiscal rules that we proposed at the previous general election and which the Chancellor is following. There is thus no reason to criticise them. However, within those fiscal rules, plenty of room remains for debate about policy. The rules tell us nothing about levels of tax or of spend, and little about many of the major economic management issues that need to be tackled.
  Mr. MacShane: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Taylor: I will in a moment; if I develop my point, it may help the hon. Gentleman.
  I want to focus on an issue where there is a substantial question mark over the Government's handling of the economy: the imbalance in growth between investment and consumption. That is reflected in the serious difficulties in manufacturing and production industries, where there is growth of less than 1 per cent., while service sector growth is in excess of 3 per cent. If we take out the growth in production of mobile communications, the manufacturing figures are even worse. A further reflection of that is shown by the terrible news at Vauxhall.
  At a time of so much difficulty in manufacturing, farming and many other industries, especially those that are export-related, why—in economic debate, in the recent pre-Budget report, in the March Budget and in the comprehensive spending review—has the Chancellor not addressed that imbalance in the economy, and the resulting loss of 250,000 jobs in manufacturing and farming since Labour took office? The hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) no longer wants to intervene.
  That imbalance in the economy is a serious weakness for the Government. It is something of a surprise under a Labour Government; support for manufacturing and manufacturing export has always been regarded as one of Labour's heartland issues. Had the Labour party gone to the polls at the last general election saying that a Labour Government would pursue policies that would destroy most of the British car industry, it is hard to believe that Labour would have received the same amount of support in those heartland constituencies. We know that there is concern among Labour Back Benchers, because several of them have been brave enough to say so; at least one Labour Front Bencher resigned from office on exactly those issues.
  Are there policies that the Government can pursue to tackle the problems in farming, manufacturing and tourism and the decline in household savings—down from 9.6 per cent. in 1997 to only 3 per cent. at present? Business investment growth is down from 7.5 per cent. in 1999 to only 1.75 per cent. this year. Since the launch of the euro, manufacturing investment in this country has fallen by 12 per cent. in real terms. Those issues are real; not only do they have an extremely public impact on the car industry and farming, but they affect many less
  698
  high-profile businesses throughout the country. There may be less publicity for those businesses, but there is equal pain for the people who built them and for their employees. People are losing their jobs and businesses are being lost.
  Mr. Miller: The hon. Gentleman knows that I have some knowledge of his constituency, because my late father-in-law farmed there, so I am well aware of many of the issues relating to remote, small farms that he describes. On manufacturing, however, I think that I may have a little more experience than him. Does he agree that an interesting challenge faces companies such as Vauxhall in my constituency? Output is growing constantly as a result of investment in technology. Whatever happens in the petrochemical industry and in other manufacturers in my constituency, output will grow while less people will be directly employed. What is the Liberal Democrat solution to that?
  Mr. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman forgets that in the past Cornwall was a county where there was heavy engineering and mining. My experience is the same as that of the hon. Gentleman. In my constituency, Imerys, formerly English China Clays, employed between 8,000 and 10,000 people when I was first elected; the number is well under 3,000 at present, and that job loss is occurring in an industry that is producing more than ever before. That company is a classic example of an industry that is seriously concerned about the international competitiveness of UK production. If we consider what is happening in the car industry, in engineering and in the clay industry, we find that they are all suffering. Our country does not invite the same share of international investment as it did in the past. Hon. Members look surprised, but the share has declined. Companies operating in this country face serious decisions as to whether they can continue manufacturing here.
  I have held talks with senior management at Vauxhall, Ford and other companies. They all say that the current level of the pound is a serious problem in attracting investment. That problem is the same for small businesses, such as Charlestown Engineering—now Svedela—in my constituency, which cannot obtain investment within the UK. That company manufactures across the globe, but it is not competitive here—despite the fact that production at its manufacturing centre in my constituency is of the highest quality in the whole group. However, each time that an investment decision is taken, that centre does not win.
  Shortly, there may be similar investment decisions on the Nissan Micra. Honda has already taken a decision. The most price competitive sectors are those that are being most clearly hit. Luxury car production is hanging on at Jaguar—although it nearly went to America. However, each of those manufacturers took a decision not to invest in the UK at the most competitive end of the market.
  Two issues drive that matter and the Government have failed to tackle them: first, interest rates; and secondly, the linked factor of the exchange rate and the lack of a clear Government policy on the euro. Nobody argues that we should join the euro at present—Liberal Democrats do not argue that, contrary to the caricature that is sometimes presented. Under current exchange rates that would be the worst possible decision.

  699
  However, there is a difference between our strategy and that of the Government: we are prepared to work towards the conditions of entry. The Government have laid out conditions, with which we agree; but they will not pronounce on the extra condition of an effective and competitive exchange rate, even though that is surely the key condition that must be met before anyone could realistically contemplate euro entry.
  One wonders what is really happening behind the scenes, but as the Government will not tell us that in any parliamentary answers we shall have to take their official position. That is, in effect, that no action will be taken until the conditions are met. The Government will wait—looking up at the sky—and if at some point the Chancellor believes that a message has come from the heavens that the conditions are met, they will plump for the euro. However, they will not be proactive in achieving a competitive exchange rate or in obtaining any of the other conditions that they set.
  Mr. Stephen Dorrell: The hon. Gentleman develops an interesting argument. As I understand it, he says that he would not contemplate joining the euro under the present exchange rate; that is proposition one. Proposition two is that the Government should be working much harder to create circumstances whereby Britain could join the euro. That means that the hon. Gentleman must have in his mind a target exchange rate, at which that would become a realistic policy. Will he tell the House what that target is?
  Mr. Taylor: I shall be glad to, and if the right hon. Gentleman is interested, I can send him the document produced with the help of a commission of very senior economists that we assembled; it sets out what we believe the position is in relation to the Government's tests, how they can work towards them, and the other conditions that will have to be met to enter the euro.
  Mr. Dorrell: Answer the question.
  Mr. Taylor: I shall answer the question. The document also sets out the exchange rate itself. We sought advice from experts, and I believe that those in government should do the same. In the nature of things, the position two years down the track may be a little different, but the experts suggested to us a range of 1.25 to 1.45 euros to the pound. Like me, the right hon. Gentleman probably does not find it easy to translate what that means, but we are talking about a range between DM2.44 to DM2.83— which, incidentally, is broadly the same conclusion around which all the academic studies on the subject have argued. It also agrees with the conclusion of the IKEA study of comparative pricing carried out by Barclays and published in November.
  IKEA prices give us a good way of testing comparative pricing, because IKEA sells exactly the same products in every country, and the study showed clearly that within the eurozone, people can buy the same goods for about 20 per cent. less. The range of prices between one euro-country and another was very narrow, which is exactly what one would expect would be the benefit of
  700
  being within a single currency. We believe that we could not join unless the exchange rate was broadly in the range that we have been advised, and that I have suggested.
  Mr. Dorrell: The hon. Gentleman has developed the IKEA test, and there are many previous versions of that, such as the Mars bar test and the McDonald's test. We have all seen those purchasing power parity tests. However, in the run-up to the general election the Liberal Democrats will now have to campaign all over the country arguing the case for a 20 per cent. devaluation of sterling.
  Mr. Taylor: I have set out a range for the right hon. Gentleman, and I shall not be tied to any specific figure. That range is what we were advised, and it also matches all the other advice. If the right hon. Gentleman represents farmers, or manufacturing companies, he should realise that much of the pain that they are suffering results from the current overvaluation of sterling.
  The Conservatives cannot talk about all that, because they have to maintain the fiction that all is well outside the euro—and the Government cannot talk about those issues either, nor will they give any indication of where they believe we stand on their tests or how they seek to achieve results, because they are not prepared to take on the argument about the euro.
  I was delighted to hear the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) conduct an intelligent debate on the subject—and I believe that the right hon. Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell) and I are also having a reasonable debate about it. However, we hear absolute rubbish from Conservatives who seek to pretend that they never wish to join the euro, and would save the pound, although their policy is merely to postpone a decision. The Government are frightened, which probably means that they might as well rule out entry for the next Parliament, because it is inconceivable that they could win the argument, hold a referendum and win it, unless they get on with arguing for it now.
  The result of that false debate is the loss of a quarter of a million jobs, the loss of international market share since the euro was launched, and the loss of our share of international investment, which has been declining since the euro was launched. The euro economies are also growing faster than ours, and consumers throughout Europe are paying lower prices than we are. Rip-off Britain is the flip side of the Save the Pound campaign. People are paying an average of £580 a year more on their mortgages than they would if our interest rates were similar to those in the rest of Europe.
  This debate urgently needs to be conducted. There are arguments for and against, but the rubbish that we hear, and the Government's avoidance of the debate, lead directly to the economic problems that we suffer—problems that the Chancellor dare not and will not mention.
  Mr. Richard Livsey rose—
  Mr. John Bercow rose—
  Mr. Taylor: I shall give way to my hon. Friend first, and then to the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow).
  Mr. Livsey: Will my hon. Friend also take into account the fact that many component manufacturers have gone

  701
  abroad? I lost 1,000 jobs in my constituency, and they went to Poland, where wages were one fifth of the level in south Wales. Because of overproduction of cars, the margins have been cut, and because of the euro situation firms are looking for cheaper production. I suggest that that is the cause of the problems in Vauxhall and many other companies, which are trying to overcome the problem by compensating in different ways.
  Mr. Taylor: There is a series of issues, but let us remember that Poland, like many other countries, is a candidate for membership of the European Union. The problems will grow if Britain is not prepared to be a full player in the European Union, to influence the decisions and to take a leading role. Conservative policies would deliver none of that.
  Mr. Bercow rose—
  Mr. Taylor: I now turn to—
  Mr. Bercow: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Taylor: Yes, I did say that I would give way to the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Bercow: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way to me, because he has whetted my appetite to pursue another point. The governing council of the European central bank comprises three Germans, two Dutchmen, two Finns, two Frenchmen, two Italians, two Spaniards, a Belgian, an Irishman, a Luxembourger and a Portuguese, and article 108 of the treaty of Amsterdam specifically prohibits national parliaments from seeking to influence the decision-making bodies of the ECB or the national central banks in the performance of their tasks. Given that, can the hon. Gentleman enlighten the House as to how he feels able to reconcile the operation of the single currency with democratic accountability to the British people?
  Mr. Taylor: One thing is sure about the European currency: there will be no accountability to the British people while we remain outside it, but it will have a huge influence on them while 60 per cent. of our manufactured exports go into the eurozone. We must simply remember how important it is to us. The hon. Gentleman has a respectable position: he would never join the euro and he never will. Unfortunately for him, those on his Front Bench believe that they might join, but not for four or five years.
  Tax and spending were the main issues debated between the parties, and the debate allowed a series of mispropositions to be peddled through the House. Those mispropositions are peddled through the House so often that I suspect that most hon. Members believe them. It is time to give the lie to them.
  The Government have followed a policy of bust and boom in public services. In the early years, they followed Conservative spending plans that meant cuts in health and education, and real-terms cuts in the share of national wealth that went to pensions and pensioners. That bust has now been followed by a boom designed to win the general election. Harold Macmillan once enunciated the
  702
  principle that if one stands on people's heads long enough, they will be pleased when one gets off. That is precisely the position that the Chancellor has followed on spending.
  Mr. Beard: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Taylor: I will in a moment. The cuts are now described as the starting point for the Labour Government, as though it were not the Labour Government who put them through. They cut expenditure at first and now they are putting it up—and they expect people to be grateful. In the lifetime of this Parliament, less of the national cake has been spent on all the public services—education, health and pensioners—than was spent by the previous Conservative Government.
  Incidentally, there is something that I should put right. So far as I can see, the Chancellor gave misleading figures to the House in his pre-Budget report. According to the Library, even if we take not only the basic state pension but the whole package for pensioners, the Government have still managed to spend less of GDP on pensioners in this Parliament than was spent on them in the previous Parliament.
  The election tactic is to cut first and spend later, which is the opposite of what Labour used to do—but it is no better, because it is dishonest. Hospitals are in crisis, schools have lost teachers, class sizes have risen in secondary schools and pensioners have received a 75p increase—and now, in his role as chairman of Labour's general election campaign, the Chancellor comes along pretending to be Miss Bountiful.
  The problem that that raises for those on the Conservative Front Bench is simple. We shall not include social security, so we shall ignore the fact that unemployment has gone down, which is a justification that Labour sometimes gives for the figures. Even on that basis, the total managed expenditure is now lower than it was under the Conservatives. Tax of course is higher, but that is because it has replaced a deficit.
  Taking the facts together, it is clear that the Labour Government are spending less of the national cake than the Conservatives did when they were in power. In fact, they are spending even less than the Conservatives planned to spend. Rather inelegantly, the former Prime Minister tried to get himself out of a hole by saying that the previous Government's announcement before the general election that they would increase tax was only a stylistic point. If that is so, perhaps his style was as bad as some of his colleagues thought, because the announcement certainly helped them to lose the general election.
  Mr. Beard: Liberal Democrat spokesmen have told us many times that, in the hypothetical event of their taking office, they would not have tried to get rid of the £29 billion deficit left by the previous Government, although such an attempt should have been a given. They would have compounded that decision by spending ever more on services. It is guaranteed that, within 18 months of their taking office, there would have been a financial crisis on the foreign exchange markets, and the whole show would have closed down, as we have seen before. How does the hon. Gentleman say that he would have

  703
  escaped, like Houdini, from such a situation? Some type of austerity was necessary initially to put right the public finances.
  Mr. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman's question is easy to answer. First, the Government have followed the same fiscal rules that we proposed—and I do not knock them for that. Secondly, we—unlike the Labour party—proposed independence for the Bank of England. We can claim some credit for that proposal. Therefore, we would have followed the same process of building up the economy.
  There is, however, one fundamental difference between the two parties' approach. We would have been able to invest more at the start of the Parliament—not by ruining the economy or spending money that was not there, but by making small, costed tax increases to guarantee the health, education and other spending increases that we outlined. Those changes would have been made at the start of the Parliament and formed a baseline for subsequent economic development. It is not difficult to understand that point. Our approach would have led to precisely the same balanced position that the Government have achieved, because we would have balanced spending and taxes.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): I do not want to impede any of my hon. Friends from intervening, but I think that someone should just remind the hon. Gentleman that he and his colleagues opposed the windfall tax. So, all this talk about everything that they would have done and all the resources available to a Labour Government being available to them is just so much nonsense.
  Mr. Taylor: The right hon. Lady is wrong. We did not support the windfall tax, but we set out our spending proposals with our tax proposals, making it clear that, in the early years of this Parliament, we would have been able to spend more than the Government did. Additionally, subsequently, our proposals would have enabled a higher expenditure baseline. Consequently, our tax take would have been a little higher during this Parliament—[Interruption.] I do not deny that the tax take would have been higher than it has been under Labour.
  Mr. Beard rose—
  Mr. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman should sit down, because I am not going to take another intervention now. He has asked a question and he will have an answer.
  The result of our policy is that people on above-average incomes would have been paying the penny in income tax, balanced by tax cuts for those who are on low incomes. Those who are on high incomes would have been paying at the 50 per cent. rate, rather than the 40 per cent. rate that they are paying under Labour or the 60 per cent. rate that they paid under Baroness Thatcher. They would have been paying a little more tax. Consequently, we could have made the improvements for which we have argued.
  704
  The fact is that the Government, contrary to the Labour manifesto, have cut pensioners' share of the national cake. In the early days, they also cut spending on schools and health. Over this Parliament, they are spending less of the national cake on all those services than Conservative Members did when they were in office.
  I return to the nonsense that we heard today from the shadow Chancellor. The fundamental point is that, by proposing those cuts, the shadow Chancellor is proposing to achieve even less than the previous Conservative Government achieved. There are only two ways in which he can implement his proposals. He will have either to cut spending on health, education and pensions below that achieved under his previous Government; to raise taxes, which he says he will not do; or—as we must suspect Conservative Members would do—run up a huge deficit, as they did when they were in office. The truth is that deficits are simply deferred taxation. Conservative Members are saying, "You can have your cake now, but pay for it later." They are proposing mortgaging the future. However, if one continues to mortgage the future, the future becomes unaffordable.
  It is no wonder that the shadow Chancellor left the No Turning Back group, as it was Baroness Thatcher who spelled out the Tory philosophy that one cannot spend what one does not have. Now, rather than belonging to the No Turning Back group, the right hon. Gentleman is out there offering cake and not charging for it. He is saying, "You can have something for nothing and tax cuts without service cuts."
  Look at the nonsense that Conservative Members are offering as examples. They say that the Government are spending an extra £1.8 billion on bureaucracy, and that there is a surge in bureaucracy under Labour. The cash figure, however, is simply the inflation increases paid to people. The truth is that, in real terms, the cost of bureaucracy has decreased under Labour. What are Conservative Members going to do cut people's pay? Are they going to cut the number of civil servants whom they could not be without when they were in government?
  Industrial injuries benefit is another example. Conservative Members say that they want to cut tax on business, but what will they deliver? They are proposing to privatise industrial injuries benefit. Excuse me, but what does that mean, other than that businesses themselves will have to pay benefits that are currently paid for by the state?
  Mr. James Clappison: The hon. Gentleman is beginning to answer the question that I was going to ask him. He started by saying that Conservative Members would cut spending on health and education. Now, he is putting his own interpretation on the items that we propose cutting—such as bureaucracy and waste. However, my right hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor has clearly stated our commitment to spending on schools and hospitals.
  Mr. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman's figures on so-called waste and bureaucracy are equivalent to the cost of 10 per cent. of all United Kingdom civil servants. I do not believe that Conservative Members could possibly make such a cut. The shadow Chancellor has gone even further, however, by saying that they would not make cuts in certain parts of the bureaucracy, such as the Home Office

  705
  and social security, but increase them. Those parts of the bureaucracy account for 35 per cent. of the total spent on it. It seems, therefore, that the rest of the system will have to be cut far more.
  Conservative Members' proposals are built on a fundamental error in their thinking. They think that spending has increased, whereas, in real terms, it has decreased. If they cannot understand the difference between nominal and real expenditure, they really do have to go back to school.
  The list goes on. On each of the Conservatives' proposed cuts, their figures do not exist, add up or work. However, we do not have to take the Liberal Democrat or Labour view on the issue; we can take the shadow Chancellor's view. The first thing he did when announcing his £8 billion tax cut package was to admit that he does not have £3 billion of the package.
  Lord Skidelsky—who was a member of the Conservatives' Front-Bench team, which he left because of a disagreement on foreign policy, not economics—is reported today by The Times as suggesting that £1 billion of the £5 billion that the shadow Chancellor claims to have come up with is "bogus". Moreover, that £1 billion is composed of savings on social security fraud. However, as that is exactly the same sum that they had found before the Government announced that they too were going to cut £1 billion in such fraud, presumably they have found another £1 billion that they had not noticed before. Lord Skidelsky called such cuts
  the bottomless source of hypothetical savings to which all Chancellors are driven when they run out of anything else to cut.
  The shadow Chancellor had the cheek to say that the Conservatives were going to increase pensions by £9.50. Half of that sum is composed of increases already announced by the Government—so there is no surprise there—and the rest comes from ending the winter fuel bonus, the free television licence, the Christmas bonus and other benefits. Although those benefits are large, combining them and adding them to the basic pension will not make pensioners any better off. Pensioners were not born yesterday. They know that they are not any better off if someone takes a pound from one of their hands and puts it in the other.
  The country has a choice about levels of tax and spending. The Government have taken their choices. Liberal Democrat Members have made a different set of proposals which entail asking people on above-average incomes to pay a little more, to fund better education, health pensions. The Conservatives are trying to sell a bogus policy, claiming that taxes can be cut without a corresponding cut in services. It is fatuous and it does not add up. No wonder that every time the shadow Chancellor relaunches himself, he has to withdraw the policy that he announced the previous time.
  7.9 pm
  Mr. Adrian Bailey: I make my maiden speech, conscious of the trust and responsibility placed in me by the electors of West Bromwich, West in the recent by-election.
  All elections have their memorable moments. My favourite from that by-election was in Wednesbury two days before polling. The pedestrian precinct was the scene of hard campaigning by the Conservative and Labour parties. In one corner was the shadow Chancellor,
  706
  surrounded by a few party faithful and an enormous number of blue and white balloons; in the other were myself and Ross Kemp, the former "Eastenders" star, surrounding by a huge throng, mainly clamouring women who wanted autographs.
  The scene was far more familiar to Mr. Kemp than to me. However, I dutifully passed on the papers for Mr. Kemp to sign, until one woman took from her shopping bag a certain item of ladies underwear that she insisted on Mr. Kemp signing. Totally unfazed, he did so and handed the item over. As he did so, a television reporter thrust a microphone in the woman's face and asked, "Does this make you any more likely to vote Labour in the by-election?" She looked him in the face and said, "Yes." I wondered at that point what hope the Tories had, when their shadow Chancellor was outfaced by a combination of a soap star and an item of ladies underwear.
  I follow in the distinguished footsteps of the previous Speaker of the House, Betty Boothroyd. Much has already been said in the House about Betty in tribute to her for her performance as Speaker for so many years. My own perspective of Betty is as one of her constituents for many years. I can vouch for the love, trust and respect for her in the constituency—not just for the way in which she put West Bromwich, West on the map, but for the fact that she held her surgeries, despite her onerous duties in the House, and was always available for constituents who had problems.
  West Bromwich, West lies in the heart of the black country. It consists of a number of small industrial towns, principally Oldbury, Tipton and Wednesbury. All those towns have a strong sense of community and a fierce civic pride. In my constituency were the forges and foundries when Britain was the workshop of the world.
  Black country people have a reputation for being plain spoken, hard working and tough. They also have fierce footballing loyalties. That presents a difficulty for me, because the geographical spread of the constituency means that one section is passionate about that erstwhile footballing giant, West Bromwich Albion, and another is equally passionate about another former footballing giant, Wolverhampton Wanderers. As a representative of the entire area, I give my support even-handedly to both, but I retain my passionate loyalty for my boyhood club, the humble Cheltenham Town. Happily, that seems to upset nobody in the constituency.
  Over the past 50 years, the original population has been joined by people from India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and the Caribbean. They have brought with them their distinctive work ethic and have enriched our local culture with their cultures and traditions.
  The local economy is still heavily manufacturing based. About 40 per cent. of jobs are in manufacturing—20 years ago, the figure was much higher. Then we had the 1980s and the early 1990s. Monetarism and the prevailing Government belief that manufacturing did not matter left the black country devastated. We still have a legacy of high unemployment, derelict land, deprivation and ill health.
  Since 1997, low interest rates, steady economic growth and the new deal for young people have started to turn that around. Unemployment in the constituency has dropped by almost a quarter, and most significantly of all,

  707
  youth unemployment by more than 60 per cent. Those are not just statistics; they represent real jobs, real income and real hope for a generation of young people.
  The other great blight on our community is crime and the fear of crime. The huge majority of law-abiding citizens in my constituency demand action against the small number of yobs who disfigure our estates and cause fear totally out of proportion to their numbers. As a resident of the constituency, I share that anger. I made it clear in my campaign that I would fight to clear our streets of such fear. I welcome the Government's commitment to increase police numbers. I want to see those extra police on the streets in my constituency.
  I want the police to be given backing in law to take the necessary measures to rid us of yobs. In my former capacity as deputy leader of the local council, I pushed for the use of anti-social behaviour orders. I am pleased to say that we now have nine in the borough and they are working, but they are not enough. I welcome the toolbox of measures for the police to use, as outlined in the Queen's Speech. I am sure that my constituents will welcome powers to ban drinking in public places and the option of curfews, if the local community feels that that is the most appropriate way to deal with the problems. There must be more money for crime deterrence, prevention, closed circuit television, school security and home security, particularly for pensioners. This is the message from the streets of West Bromwich, West: it is time to call time on crime.
  So far, I have dwelt on the problems in my constituency, but there is another side. There is the pride and community spirit that has led to a network of tenants, residents and community groups. Those groups have enthusiastically embraced Government regeneration initiatives. The Tipton challenge partnership, which created 800 new jobs, trained 3,000 people for other jobs and built more than 600 new houses, now has the pioneering Neptune health park, which groups a wide range of medical services under one roof. The famous Tipton Harriers athletic club hosts the Tipton sports academy, which can rival any sports facility anywhere in the country.
  As someone who has worked for the co-operative movement and is committed to the principles of co-operation and mutuality, I am proud of the role played by such organisations in sustaining services to the local community. In addition to the traditional range of services provided by local co-op societies, we have a food co-operative which provides healthy food to many who would otherwise not be able to access it. We have a housing co-operative that is pioneering new tenant management techniques. I want the Government to promote that form of enterprise to empower local communities.
  Local building societies have played an enormous part in local regeneration. The Government must recognise that the loss of mutual organisations to economic predators can potentially deprive us and our deprived communities of some of our most vital allies in the campaign against social exclusion.
  708
  However, community spirit is not enough. We need investment in our public services to make lasting progress. The Government's commitment to raising educational standards is working in my constituency. Educational standards are improving. Investment in schools and the literacy and numeracy hours are paying dividends. Our GCSE and standard assessment test results are improving. My constituency cannot cope with the £24 million of potential cuts outlined by the shadow Chancellor.
  The announcement in my constituency yesterday by the Deputy Prime Minister of funding for the new metrolink across the constituency will be a huge boost for local people. The existing line, which runs from Birmingham to Wolverhampton, has clearly demonstrated that people will switch from cars to public transport when it is available—15 per cent. of people have switched from cars. The new line from Wednesbury to Brierley Hill will liberate many people without cars and will be a huge contribution to environmentally friendly transportation.
  Our local industry is diversifying. We still have many of the traditional metal-bashing companies, but we also have the companies that I visited during my campaign, such as FreeCom, which employs more than 100 people to design websites. Another such company is Advanced Electric Logistics, which is a European leader in audiovisual repairs.
  A recent survey in February listed West Bromwich, West as the best area outside London to which companies should relocate. I represent a constituency where things are happening. Traditional industry is changing to meet the demands of a high-tech economy. We have a work force who are becoming better educated and trained. We have an improving transport network.
  I am proud to have been elected to represent that constituency. The people of West Bromwich, West have shown a great resilience in the face of past adversities. They have shown a will to work together to overcome them. I welcome this opportunity to work in the House with the people and the Government to rid our streets of crime, create new jobs and give my constituents the quality of life that they deserve.

  DEFERRED DIVISIONS
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Sylvia Heal): Order. I now have to announce the results of the Divisions deferred from the previous day.
  On the motion "Fisheries: Total Allowable Catches and Quotas 2001", the Ayes were 437 and the Noes 86, so the motion was agreed to.
  On the motion "Christmas (Adjournment)", the Ayes were 478 and the Noes 8, so the motion was agreed to.
  On the motion "Sittings of the House", the Ayes were 478 and the Noes were 5, so the motion was agreed to.
  On the motion "Section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993, the Ayes were 470 and the Noes were 13, so the motion was agreed to.
  [The Division lists are published at the end of today's debates.]

  The Economy
  Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.
  7.23 pm
  Mr. John Redwood: I congratulate the hon. Member for West Bromwich, West (Mr. Bailey) on his speech. I particularly enjoyed the parts where he tried to represent the views of his constituents to the Government. Many of us think that that is a noble and important task. It is a privilege that we all share in the House and I hope that he will carry on doing it. He will discover that one of the problems of being a Back Bencher whose party is in government is that those on the Front Bench will expect him to agree with anything that they propose, even when it is not in the interests of his constituents. We look forward to his being a more robust contributor on behalf of his constituents than some of his right hon. and hon. Friends. If he proves to be so, we shall carry on giving him an easy ride. If he fails, some of my right hon. and hon. Friends may be a little less charitable than I have been on this delightful occasion, when he rightly spent most of his time on his constituency and its problems.
  We had a ridiculous performance from a puffed-up Chancellor. This was the man who once admitted to the competition for new Labour soundbite of the month the extraordinary phrase, "endogenous growth theory". He did not win the soundbite prize with that. As Chancellor, he has been less good at soundbites. He has just come up with another absurd one, "No more boom and bust", while creating both at the same time. He would more successfully be dubbed "Mr. Endogenous Tax Chancellor" because he is the man who cannot resist taxing anything—any money that he sees straying around the economy in private pockets, purses, or bank accounts.
  One of the most effective soundbites that was generated by someone other than Mr. Endogenous Growth Theory himself in the run-up to the general election even had a tune to go with it, which was quite catchy. It was, "Things can only get better." I have been out and about in my constituency, and travelling the length and breadth of our once fair and great country to see whether things are getting better now that we are more than three and a half years into a Labour Government and whether people think that things are getting better.
  I began by talking to people in the textile industry. I asked them if they felt that the industry was stronger, bigger and more positive than it had been when the Labour party came to office. I discovered that those in the textile industry feel that they are being flattened by this Government's insouciance about manufacturing in general and textiles in particular.
  Under this new Labour Government our biggest clothes retailer, Marks and Spencer, has had to announce that it will have to switch a large proportion of its purchasing from British to foreign-made textiles to stay in the very competitive market that Labour has helped to create by its clumsy, high-tax and high-regulation policies.
  I have no direct interest in textiles—I have declared my interests in the Register of Members' Interests. I have talked to people with direct experience of the industries that I wish to discuss. I can assure the House that people in the textile industry believe that they are being
  710
  sandbagged by regulations, taxes and a Government who do not seem to care when, week after week, mills and clothing factories close.
  Mr. MacShane: Hansard will tell us exactly what the right hon. Gentleman said, but am I right in thinking that he just stated that Marks and Spencer suffered because of the highly competitive market created by the Labour Government? What is wrong with that?
  Mr. Redwood: I was saying that in a competitive marketplace the Labour Government have made it difficult for a retailer that wants to sell domestically produced clothes. The taxes, regulations, interventions and interference of this Government have meant that Marks and Spencer has had to switch. Under the Conservatives, it bought most of its clothes in Britain and was proud to do so. That happened year after year, whatever the conditions. Now that we have a Labour Government, the largest purchaser of our manufactured clothes that retails in this country has decided that it must slash dramatically the amount that it buys in Britain because the Government have made it too dear to make things in Britain.
  Mr. Salmond: Unlike the right hon. Gentleman, I have textile businesses in my constituency. When I speak to people in those businesses about the problems, which are substantial, the first thing that they tell me is that they are due to the exchange rate. Why has the right hon. Gentleman not mentioned that? Could it have anything to do with the fact that one of his colleagues was attacking the Liberal Democrats for proposing a devaluation? With all his experience of talking to all these companies, is the right hon. Gentleman trying to tell us that they did not talk to him about the sterling exchange rate?
  Mr. Redwood: They talked about total costs against the revenue that they can earn from selling the product. The main problem is the cost of making things in Britain. Of course, the exchange rate is an important part of the equation when one considers whether to buy from France, Germany, the United States or Britain. If one combines an economic policy that deliberately drives the exchange rate and interest rates much higher than those of our partners and competitors with a policy that increases the taxes, costs and regulatory burden on British business, one ends up with an explosive mixture that does enormous damage to manufacturing.
  I have issued warnings about this for many months and years. I was the one who forecast that we would have a manufacturing recession. I did not forecast a general recession, although that is what the Labour party would like people to believe. Hansard shows that I specifically forecast a manufacturing recession, which is exactly what we have had. It was foreseeable and avoidable. It was deliberately caused by the Government's macro-economic policy and other specific policies that they pursued on manufacturing.
  Mr. Beard: The right hon. Gentleman just suggested that the pound had been driven to higher levels by the policies pursued by the Government. Which Government policy does he believe has driven the pound to those heights?
  Mr. Redwood: It is the combined impact of all the Government's policies—high tax, high interest rates and

  711
  the semi-independent Bank of England. Had they had a different attitude towards tax and spend in the first couple of years, I suspect that the Bank of England would have set different interest rates and we might have had a more acceptable exchange rate. One can never prove those counter-factuals or hypotheticals. However, I remember making proposals on the general movement in economic and tax policy and regulation that would have produced a better mixture of the exchange rate and the interest rate, and would have kept some of those factories open.
  Mrs. Beckett: Since the right hon. Gentleman attributes the increase in the exchange rate to the Government's policies, will he explain why two thirds of that increase took place before we were elected to power?
  Mr. Redwood: The important point is what has happened since 1997—[Interruption.] The right hon. Lady must start to take responsibility for what has been happening in the country under the Government who she supports and of whom she is a member. In 1995, when the Conservative Government were in power, BMW came to Britain and said that it was the best place in Europe bar none in whom to manufacture cars. It put a lot of money behind that judgment. Recently, unfortunately, it pulled out and said that Britain was now the worst place in western Europe in which to make cars. What had changed? We had a change of Government, and the Labour Government have presided over a sharp increase in the value of sterling against the European currencies.
  Mr. Jim Cunningham: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Redwood: I shall give way when I have finished my point. I am trying to deal with the serious point made by the Leader of the House. The Government have presided over a big increase in the value of the pound against continental currencies and a big increase in the margin of interest rates—we have much higher rates than continental countries in the euro bloc. There were bigger increases in regulation and taxation than competitor economies experienced, so it is no wonder that the Government got into an awful mess.
  Mr. Cunningham: The right hon. Gentleman wants to be careful when he talks about BMW, as there was a highly productive labour force at Rover. He is suggesting that it is something else, but everyone knows that there is overcapacity of 20 per cent. in the motor car industry.
  Mr. Redwood: That does not mean that closures have to occur in Britain. As we heard earlier in the interesting exchanges on the sad events in the past two days at Luton, we do not make enough cars to meet all the domestic demand. The matter therefore has something to do with costs and competitiveness. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has been puffing himself up for three and a half years with all sorts of competitiveness and productivity initiatives. However, the sad truth of life is that in this crucial manufacturing area, whether it concerns textiles, steel, cars or other activities, we are clearly less competitive—at these exchange and interest rates, with this regulatory burden and with these costs—
  712
  than we were when the Chancellor began his initiatives three and a half years ago. That is why factories are closing and jobs are being lost under his watch. It is also why international investors in manufacturing are now saying that Britain is not the best place in western Europe bar none in which to make things, but the worst.
  Mr. Matthew Taylor: The right hon. Gentleman and I appear to agree substantially on exchange rates, although we disagree entirely on at least some of the solutions. One of his colleagues asked me a question, so perhaps I can put the same question to him. What scale of devaluation of sterling would be appropriate? After all, it was 45 per cent. lower than the current level when it troughed after we came out of the exchange rate mechanism.
  Mr. Redwood: Exchange rates are determined by market forces. I am not in the business of predicting what I would like to see, as the rates will depend on the market judgment at the time. However, I have set out an alternative general strategy to costs.
  Mr. MacShane: That is helpful.
  Mr. Redwood: Why does the hon. Gentleman not show a little humility and understand that Governments influence exchange rates, but do not control them? The Government have allowed a high exchange rate against the euro because of their mix of policies. I have just sketched a mix of policies that would produce a different level of exchange rate against the euro, but I am not in the business of predicting exactly what that level would be. That would depend on when the policies were introduced, how the markets reacted to them and other consequences.
  Mr. Salmond: As a question of mine started this interesting debate, may I ask why, if the right hon. Gentleman believes that exchange rates are determined by market forces, he also believes that they are now too high? If he believes that they are too high—and I agree with him—he must have an idea of how high they are. Will he tell us, or do we have to persuade the right hon. Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell) to ask him a question if we are to get an answer?
  Mr. Redwood: Hon. Members are being rather obtuse. The combination of the level of the exchange rate and the costs imposed, partly by the Government, on British manufacturing mean that, in many areas, it cannot compete and is suffering deeply. It is crying out with anguish. I am suggesting ways in which the mix could be changed. Governments have power to influence the exchange rate, but cannot determine precisely what it will be from day to day, or even how it will end up once a policy is fully implemented. I am just urging the Government to try to do something. They must understand that if they do nothing about high tax, high regulatory costs and all the other things that they have imposed, as well as the high exchange rate, they will continue to preside over the collapse of British manufacturing.
  Mr. Bercow: A few moments ago, my right hon. Friend referred to productivity. Is it any wonder that Government Back Benchers are so unaware of the decline in the productivity growth rate under their watch, given the

  713
  ignorance that the Prime Minister displayed at Question Time last week, when he was challenged factually and in detail on that very point by my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Sir M. Spicer)?
  Mr. Redwood: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. The Chancellor has never understood that he needs to do rather better on providing the conditions in which productivity increases. He must allow manufacturing to offset the massive devaluation of the euro and the big revaluation of the pound against European competitor currencies. The Chancellor has not taken part in that debate. Indeed, he has ignored it and pretended that it does not matter. He seems to have turned away from the problem of manufacturing industry being in a slump or recession in many areas.
  The car industry is another subject on which I have spent a little time talking to people. There has been a litany of disasters. We know about Dagenham and the troubles there. Today, we have seen the sad closure of the Luton car plant. We have seen the retreat of BMW from Rover, and we know that there are several other large plants around the country where there are question marks or difficulties. We rarely get any attention or answers from the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, who just waits for the problem to grab the headlines. He just waits for closures and redundancies to be announced, and then comes in and says, "Don't blame me, everybody. I'll find a few pence from the taxpayers' coffers to send a grant and hope that all will be well." He offers Elastoplast when great limbs of the British economy are being cut off as a result of the policies that he pursues.
  Mr. Beard: How would the right hon. Gentleman reply to the chief executives of most motor car manufacturing enterprises, who would tell him that specifying a date on which we shall enter the European monetary union would bring great relief to their present position?
  Mr. Redwood: I should love to meet someone who said that about entering at the current exchange rate. I thought that until now we agreed that the combination of costs and the exchange rate is suicidal for a lot of manufacturing.
  Mr. Beard: That is not what I said.
  Mr. Redwood: I know of no industrialists who are saying, "Please take us in now at the present exchange rate. We are suffering today, but we would love to guarantee that we suffer in perpetuity." Would the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Mr. Beard) like to explain to the House how big a devaluation he would like, how the Chancellor would secure it, how we could live in the ERM for two years at the new rate—as we would have to do at that new rate—and how that would make for prosperity in manufacturing? I should love to have an answer to those three crucial points.
  Mr. Beard: Companies can presume that we may well be in the ERM at some date in the future, having satisfied the conditions that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has laid down. That is very different from the position of the Opposition and the right hon. Gentleman, which would
  714
  mean that we would never go in. Their position of "never, never, never" is disturbing many people for whom the right hon. Gentleman is expressing sympathy.
  Mr. Redwood: It does not disturb them at all. Business men look at the bottom line—at the balance between costs and revenue, and whether they will make money. The simple truth now is that, unfortunately, because of the Government, too many do not think that they can make money here, so when they have the opportunity they shift their activities and production elsewhere. That is the simple truth of business life and I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman does not know it.
  I am not surprised that the hon. Gentleman cannot answer my three rather important points on entering the euro, but most people who want to enter the euro agree with the Liberal Democrat position. They want to enter at 10, 15, 20 or 25 per cent. below the current rate, but they must explain how to get there. Should we slash interest rates, print so many fivers and set off huge inflation? That would bring the exchange rate down. Is that a good idea? Could that then be held for two years? Our partners and, I think, Mr. Prodi himself have said clearly that we would need to meet the requirement of being two years in the exchange rate mechanism. Would that do us good? I seem to remember that last time we were in it, it had cross-party agreement but it was a loathsome policy that worked extremely badly. One party has apologised and it is a pity that the other two have not, because they were extremely keen on it at the time.
  Mr. Matthew Taylor: The document that we published set out a number of tools that might be used, but the most important is to set a target and make it clear that the Government are working towards that as part of an entry process. We know that that can be effective, although not necessarily, which is why we elaborated some other options. We know that that is likely to be effective because that is precisely what those candidate countries for euro membership did in the run up to the launch of the euro. Because the markets believed that they meant it, they were able to sustain those rates on entry. That is one reason why we have not ducked the question of the range needed by the Government. Any Government serious about entry have to be serious about setting out the range on entry that they believe would be appropriate.
  Mr. Redwood: I wish that the Chancellor would get as far in his thinking as the Liberal Democrat spokesman. The Liberal Democrats are trying to answer the question, but they have not succeeded. It is not enough simply to name a date and say where we would like to get to. Exchange rates often overshoot in both directions compared with where business men and certainly Governments would like them to be. To change the trend decisively, the policies that would have to be followed might have to be rather severe, and there might then be undershoot the other way, which would be difficult to handle. The Government need to take us into their thinking on that.
  One of the scandals of the non-euro debate is that, from time to time, senior Government spokesmen tell the press that they will have a great national debate, or would like a great national debate, but they never appear. I have offered to debate with any member of the Government, high or low, bright or dull, in any studio, on any platform.

  715
  They can chose the chairman or rig the audience, I do not mind; I just want to debate the matter with a Minister. Throughout the Government's lifetime, I have never had the chance to do so, which is a disgrace in a democracy.
  Mr. MacShane: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Redwood: I should like to debate the matter with a Minister. I know that the hon. Gentleman would love to be a Minister, but he is too candid to be made one. He occasionally tells us the truth, and the Government do not like that in their Back Benchers. They will not debate the issue.
  When my right hon. and hon. Friends and I table questions on the five economic tests, we are always given stupid answers. We are not told exactly how the tests will be quantified; we do not know the period over which they are being measured; we do not know when we will have any kind of interim report or answer, and we have not had one so far. We cannot even be told whether the economic strategy that the Government are now following is designed to get us closer to passing the five economic tests. If we cannot be told exactly what the tests are, how they will be judged or scored, or when we will have a result, it is not surprising when our questions about whether we are getting any closer and whether the policies are designed to help us are blocked.
  However, I am being distracted from what I wanted to do, which was to explore whether things are getting better rather than talking about the euro, which we clearly will not join. I am far more worried about the power that has been given away in the Nice treaty, which is real, rather than the euro, which the Government have no guts or courage to propose to the British people, and they are right not to do so.
  I then visited a farm in my constituency. Thanks to the Government, I do not have many farmers left, but I do have one or two. The farmer I visited in the western part of my constituency told me a sad story. He said that, over many years, the farm had provided a good living for himself, his son and their families. However, in the past few months the son has had to seek employment elsewhere because there was no way in which the farm could sustain two of them. The farmer told me in confidence that, from time to time, he had difficult discussions with the bank manager, that matters are being watched week by week and that, if they continue much longer, he too will have to conclude that the farm that once sustained the two families can no longer sustain even him and his wife. That is a typical experience. Farmers are committing suicide because of the pressure. They are going out of business and their sons are leaving the land. We are in danger of no longer having people to farm Britain's beautiful farmland, yet the Government sit and watch but do nothing. Tell the farmers that things are getting better and they will only cry because they know that there is not a shred of truth in that for them.
  I then visited the fishermen in the constituencies of a couple of my hon. Friends in Dorset. I chose Dorset because I do not think that any fishermen are left on the east coast where I went a few years ago. Most of them have been wiped out by a combination of the Government
  716
  and the common fisheries policy. The few Dorset fishermen who turned up told me that there were not many others who could have turned up and that it was almost impossible to earn a decent living today. They also said that they did not think that their Government, their Chancellor and their fishing Ministers stood up for them, and they certainly have not brought anything back from Brussels for a long time.
  When the Prime Minister went to Nice to give the country away in the draft treaty, why did he not even think about asking for a better deal for our fishermen or to get back our fishing policy? Does it not matter to him that a great maritime nation, which once had fishing boats stacked up in every port around its coasts, now has practically nothing left? When I was in Dorset, I was told of Spanish trawlers sighted off the coast with EU permission to research and investigate other types of fish that they had not yet taken away because they were clearly planning another pre-emptive strike on our fishing resources? The Government are a disgrace and the Chancellor should not say that the economy is doing well or things are getting better when he is wiping out the fishing industry.
  Mr. MacShane: In the European debate two or three weeks ago, the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) announced that he was standing down at the next election because he felt that no party stood for the repatriation of the common fisheries policy. He was scandalised that no party would be standing for that, except perhaps the UK Independence party. In the light of the remarks that the right hon. Gentleman has just made, is he now saying that his personal policy is not that of the Conservative party, and that he is for the repatriation of the common fisheries policy?
  Mr. Redwood: Yes, of course I am saying that I support the repatriation of the common fisheries policy. I have a great respect for my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill), but on this occasion I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend are a little behind events. If they care to read the Conservative party's draft manifesto and other documents, they will see that that has been adopted as official Conservative party policy. Had a Conservative Prime Minister gone off to Nice to negotiate a treaty, that would have been number one on his agenda. I am sure that we would have wanted something back before we thought of giving any power away. This Government give all the powers away then come home claiming triumph because they have not tried to do anything contentious.
  Mr. Beard: Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that the fishing industry's present parlous state is largely due to overfishing around these shores and in the North sea under the previous Conservative Government, who could have done something about it? Does he also recognise that, as that is the fundamental problem, to repatriate Britain's fishing policy will do nothing as fish do not happen to respect international boundaries?
  Mr. Redwood: It so happens that we have potential control of the most important fishery in the EU, and I see no reason to have a common fisheries policy for the North sea when there is not one for the Mediterranean. That is not just, fair or balanced. Yes, of course, overfishing is

  717
  the main problem. The overfishing is occurring now, the problem is getting worse and that is why I am holding the Government to account on it. 1 seem to remember occasionally making such points in the previous Conservative Administration, because it is true that the problem has not suddenly developed, but it is getting much worse.
  What matters to the fishermen still left is what this Government are failing to do and the more severe quotas that have just been announced, which will further damage British fishermen. Many Spanish vessels have come in legally under the common fisheries policy, taken too many fish, left too little for our fishermen and caused the problem. That should be addressed and stopped. I do not know how the Government have the cheek to say that things are getting better when the textile industry is being flattened, the retail sector is in part being knocked sideways, the steel sector is being bulldozed, the car industry is being hit for six, farming is being smashed to pieces and fishing is being obliterated.
  Ms Keeble: On fishing, does the right hon. Gentleman accept that most of the issue could have been resolved in the Merchant Shipping Act 1988? The then Conservative Government were challenged over the Act in the European courts and merely rolled over and played dead. They then introduced new legislation that caused the current circumstances, in which ships can legally come in and take quotas. Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that, when his party was in government, it could have reached crunch time with the EU, but chickened out?
  Mr. Redwood: As the hon. Lady implied, a court case went against us. However, the whole point of raising the issue of the Nice treaty is that the rules should be renegotiated in such a major treaty. As the Prime Minister wanted to give away such a lot to our Commission partners, why did he not bargain on that matter? They did not know at the beginning that he wanted to give those things away. Why did he not stick out for something before he made all his major concessions? He was a lousy negotiator who showed all his cards at the beginning and did not ask for anything back for Britain.
  I am being much delayed, rather like my next subject—the trains. When I was asking whether things were getting better, I went to my local station, where 1 hoped to catch a train to London from Reading. I was, of course, too optimistic about the Labour Government. Under the Conservative Government, there was a service every 10 minutes from Reading to Paddington. Trains were occasionally late, but that did not matter because a previous train would probably have been delayed, ensuring a service every 10 minutes. One could live with that. It was not perfect, but it was okay.
  When I went to the station the other day, a train limped in after I had waited on the platform for a quarter of an hour. Passengers were told that it was the 11.58 to Portsmouth. A few people cheered, as they wanted to catch that train. The time on the station clock was 12.59 when the 11.58 limped in. Another half hour passed and a train for London finally arrived. No indicator boards were working at the station, so it was an interesting game. We were all on one platform and had to listen to the gobbledegook coming through the loud hailer. Whether or not one could understand that, one had to run to the
  718
  platform where the train was arriving and ask the driver where he was going. If one was lucky, the train was going to London.
  Well, things have really got better if that is the position that has been reached after three and a half years of the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions messing around with the trains.
  Mr. Casale: Did the right hon. Gentleman ask the other passengers on Reading station whether they voted for the Conservative party in 1992? If they did, they share with him responsibility for making such an appalling mess of rail privatisation.
  Mr. Redwood: When the Conservatives left office, there were more trains, they were becoming more reliable and passenger numbers were rising. Three and a half years later, the service has fallen to a level that I cannot remember in my lifetime—indeed, I suspect that we have never seen it before. The public are aware of that and know who to blame. It has happened on this Government's watch, under the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, whose capricious and idiotic meddling has led directly to regulatory overload and a number of bad decisions. That is why the train system is now almost at a standstill and the roads are completely clogged.
  In an economy debate, one of the few things that one would usually have assumed that the Government could sort out is transport. As the economy grew in 1997 and 1998, anybody could see that we needed more and more capacity. I do not believe that there was enough road or rail capacity when the Conservatives left office. Why, then, did the Government slash the road programme, mess up the railway system and over-regulate, instead of freeing the railway system to get on and do the job that it needed to do?
  The other day, I tried to travel around the country by car, having given up on the railways—as, unfortunately, many of my constituents have done. I sat in one of those spectacular Labour traffic jams. Some traffic jams occurred in 1997. I remember them well and I knew the time that they took. They were a nuisance, but one could just about handle them. Traffic jams now are much better. I concede that some things have got better, as I recognise that the traffic jams are spectacularly better than they were in 1997. The journey from my constituency to the House used to take 55 minutes, if all was well, and an hour and a half if there were traffic jams. It now takes two and a half hours.
  Some hon. Members now spend seven or eight hours travelling each way between their constituencies and the House. They lose more than a whole working day dealing with Labour's traffic jams. That is one day out of the three or four days which the Government sometimes allow us to be present in the House. The situation is spectacularly worse. The arrogant Chancellor said nothing to us tonight, and has said nothing at any other time, about how he will get Britain on the move. A first-rate economy cannot be achieved with third world-style transport. Indeed, on some of our systems, I would be pleased if we reached third-world levels. The third world has rather better trains than ours.
  In pursuit of something that had got better, I went to see my local hospital. I was told that 10 per cent. of acute care beds are blocked. Their numbers have already been

  719
  reduced by the Labour Government. They are blocked because the people in them want or need to go to a residential or nursing care home, but there are none at the price that the Government are prepared to match for those who need support and help from the state. That is another disgrace. The only thing that has got better in the health service is the length of the waiting lists, which are now much longer than when the Government came to power in 1997.
  I went to my local schools and asked them how they were getting on. I asked whether things were getting better there. I was told that classes were definitely getting bigger and that teacher shortages were increasing. The schools cannot get teachers for love and they are not paying them enough money, so there is a simple impasse in my area, where many schools have large classes and an inability to recruit teachers. The same problem applies with regard to doctors and nurses.
  A lot of money is being raised in tax. The boastful, arrogant Chancellor tells us that he is spending it all, but there is no money to buy the teachers, nurses, doctors and policemen that we want. That brings me to the local police meeting that I attended to hear the voters of Wokingham talking to the local police. The police told us that they were short of men and that trained policemen were leaving areas such as mine. We were told that 100 or 200 had gone north to find cheaper housing, as they could not afford that in my area. We are, therefore, short of policemen to do the work that we need to be done. I was interested to hear from the hon. Member for West Bromwich, West that the same has happened in his constituency. I was pleased to hear him make a plea for better policing and a clampdown on crime. He knows that the Home Secretary has not delivered.
  So, this is a country in which things that people wanted to get better have not got better. There are longer waiting lists, fewer police, more crime, worse schools and bigger class sizes. All the problems which one thought Labour might have sorted out with the spending splurge that has been reannounced 16 times have not been sorted out. We are paying £670 a year in extra tax for the average family, but we are getting nothing for it. We all know that we are being sandbagged at the petrol pumps by the Chancellor with his huge tax rises, so why cannot we have the teachers? We all know that our pension funds are being robbed, so why cannot we have the nurses? We all know that we are being ripped off by the Chancellor's taxes if we travel or need insurance, so why cannot we have the policemen?
  This failed Government are presiding over a boom-and-bust economy. They are so wooden that they cannot see the bust in manufacturing, fishing and farming. This Government are presiding over a wasteful splurge of public spending that is not being directed at the things that we want. We want teachers, nurses, doctors and policemen. We can have them and more besides for less than 40 per cent. of public spending—the area that the Government do not seem to know how to work. They waste millions and millions on spin doctors, over-administration, regional development agencies, domes and all the paraphernalia of new Labour nonsense: the things that people do not want. This was a vacuous Queen's Speech from a washed-up
  720
  Government. They have deeply disappointed the British people and let them down. I hope that the British people will make their judgment clear come the election.
  7.59 pm
  Mr. Jim Cunningham: The right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), who took us on a mystery tour, must have felt down when he made his visits. Most of the responsibilities for what he found rest at the doorstep of the previous Government. He was a member of that Government, who created the situation that he found when he went on his tour. We are not going to be brainwashed by him into blaming a Labour Government who are trying to improve the situation. He will not get away either with talking about the state of the railways, as it was his Government who privatised the railways and created 100-odd companies, which has caused utter confusion. Moreover, his Government ensured that there was a general lack of investment in the railways for nearly 20 years. It is interesting that he has adopted a Pontius Pilate routine tonight, which involves saying, "It wasn't me, guv'nor; it was everybody else. Not me." He will not get away with that. He even resigned from the previous Government.
  I actually felt sorry for the shadow Chancellor tonight. He is trying to pursue an economic policy, but, with his colleagues divided 57 ways, how can he propose any economic alternatives?
  On the positive side, I welcome the £21 billion that will be spent on the national health service, the £19 billion that will be spent on education and the £180 billion that will be used over the next 10 years to put right the transport system that was wrecked by the Tories' policies.
  I also welcome the increase for pensioners, which was long overdue. I am glad that my colleagues recognised the need for that increase. Pensioners have told me that they are concerned about issues such as the means test, and they want something to be done about the link with earnings. We on the Labour Benches have to be constituency Members of Parliament and support the Government, and we represent our constituents at the same time.
  People in Coventry and on its outskirts are concerned about the serious situation at Rolls-Royce Amsty. A few weeks ago, it said that it was moving some of its manufacturing facilities to Canada, with a loss of 500 or 600 jobs. One also has to consider the indirect effect on small suppliers. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will talk to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry about what solutions can be found to deal with that problem.
  Nissan was mentioned earlier. Some of us on the Trade and Industry Committee have visited that company. Part of the problem may be the exchange rate, but it has other problems, too, one of which is a general lack of investment. Jaguar has also been mentioned. It is doing very well—it is expanding in Coventry. That is a big turnaround from about 10 or 12 years ago, when people were desperately trying to keep Jaguar in Coventry.
  Those are some of the good things that have happened under this Government. Those facts contrast with the doom and gloom that we have heard from Opposition Members.

  721
  One has to concede that there is a problem in the textile industry, although that is not the Government's fault and we should not be blamed for it. I have discussed it from time to time with the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, who has produced a range of proposals.
  I welcome the measures that the Home Secretary has introduced to recruit more policemen and, more importantly, his approach to neighbourhood problems. People who live in neighbourhoods that have a yob culture feel under seige—they are terrorised and some, particularly the elderly, are frightened to go out. I welcome his approach to reducing crime.
  I also welcome the fact that nationally 250,000 more young people have found jobs. Under the previous Government, many of those young people could not find jobs, and felt isolated and forgotten. While I am on the subject, I also welcome the fact that the present Government have been investing in the acquisition of skills, and will continue to invest in that. Industry badly needs skills. The previous Government did not do very much about that issue. We should remember how many companies took on young people as apprentices under the previous Government. If any were taken on, they had to be bribed for about six months, and then were let go. Under this Government, increasing numbers of young people are finding permanent employment and training.
  I and, I am sure, many people up and down the country, welcome the fact that the Chancellor is encouraging other countries to do something about third world debt. Indeed, he is going further—he is trying to deal with the whole issue of the third world, and the role of skills, investment and training in that context. With that approach, we could develop new markets in the third world in the long term.
  I was interested by the speech by the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major). It was the first time that we have heard from the Tory Benches a cohesive idea about Europe, and it is now clear what his views on Europe are. For a Conservative, he spoke a lot of common sense on a number of issues, but especially on Europe. Interestingly, his position is no different from that of the present Government. However, his colleagues on the Opposition Front Bench are miles away from him.
  The right hon. Member for Wokingham mentioned farmers and fisheries. I remember a heck of a lot of debates in the Chamber about fisheries and quotas, which were negotiated by the previous Government. I also remember the fishermen demonstrating. Some of them, especially those in Northern Ireland, burned their boats in response to the previous Government's policies. That Government let them down in Europe and failed to get them appropriate deals on quotas.
  The present Government are putting money towards assisting farmers and they are trying to change the whole ethos of country life for those farmers who are considering doing something else. The Government have gone so far as to try to save country post offices—the right hon. Member for Wokingham did not mention that. The farming problem started with the BSE crisis.
  The previous Government said that there was no such problem, but eventually said that there was. The present Government are suffering from a legacy that was left to them by the previous Government.
  Members of the previous Government accuse us of arrogance and of using too many guillotines, but who was it who introduced the poll tax? The previous Government.
  722
  I say to the shadow Chancellor that, whether we talk about cutting £16 billion or £8 billion, one thing is certain: the Opposition's intent to slash local government services. They use coded words when they talk about making savings by cutting bureaucracy. I wonder which bureaucracy they are talking about. When they define local government and local government employees, they normally mean the bureaucrats in local government. That could be a coded way for a Conservative Government to say to local government, "You are now going to be put to the axe."
  We remember the 15 per cent. interest rate hikes under the previous Government, although the right hon. Member for Wokingham talked about interest rates under this Government. There were record levels of crime and hospital closures under that Government, but the right hon. Gentleman said that he visited hospitals in his constituency. There were also cuts in education. On the national health service, who remembers the number of people who could not get beds and found themselves on trollies outside wards?
  We could go on about the Opposition's record. They failed tonight to put forward a cohesive alternative. It is no good their saying to us, "You must answer our questions and tell us what you are doing, but we do not want to tell you, and you have no right to ask us, about our policies."
  The shadow Chancellor certainly has some major problems in his party, which is divided economically, over Europe and in other ways. I felt sorry for him. He tried to put on a brave face. He has obviously been taking acting lessons, but he could not convince us that his colleagues were united behind him.
  8.8 pm
  Mr. William Ross: I listened to some hon. Members speaking at length today about whether we should go into the single currency. Those who make the excuse that the time is not right are simply refusing to take the political decision that has to be taken. That decision will not be taken on economic grounds, and every sensible body in this country knows that. It is a political decision.
  Some say that the positions that they are currently adopting are temporary and that they are sitting on the fence to see whether things will improve. The plain truth is, of course, that that position has been temporary for so long that it is becoming permanent. That may be the best that we can hope for, until we have a Government who can make up their mind on that matter. Whether I will still be in the House at that time—it may be a few Parliaments down the way—I do not know. If I am not, I shall certainly encourage my successor to vote against any such foolishness—I have lived through and seen the consequences of the exchange rate mechanism.
  However, I did not come here today to talk about that aspect of the Government's policy.
  Mr. MacShane: The hon. Gentleman represents part of the United Kingdom, which has an interface with the eurozone countries. I hear endless complaints from the hon. Gentleman's colleagues in other Ulster parties about the difference between the pound sterling and the punt, which is now part of the eurozone. Does the hon. Gentleman see

  723
  no advantage—no tiny advantage—in having the same currency for what is now, in effect, one economy in Ireland?
  Mr. Ross: I can tell the hon. Gentleman that there is not one economy in Ireland. If he had tried to buy a house in Dublin over the past year or two, he might not be so accommodating about the euro. As it happens, I believe the fact that the economy in the Irish Republic is roaring ahead in this way—unsustainably in the long term, I think—is a clear indication of what can happen to any nation in the eurozone. But, as I have said, I did not come here to talk about that. It is a subject for debate on another day.
  During the Chancellor's interesting speech, to which I listened carefully, I asked him about public sector debt in the context of his own remarks. He had spoken of the need for a sensible ratio between public sector debt and gross domestic product. I did not receive a very satisfactory answer; the Chancellor referred me to the Red Book.
  Everyone has talked about the "economic cycle", not just in the present Administration but in earlier ones, but no one has ever told me how long the cycle will last. I think we should aim not just for what is described as a balanced budget, but for a budget that steadily reduces our public sector debt to nil. That would at least remove the need for high interest payments. I always think that borrowing money and paying interest at the end of the day costs the nation far more than taxing honestly to raise the money. If that were done, at least everyone would know where they stood—but I suppose that honesty is a bit too much to expect from any Chancellor when an election is approaching.
  Some years ago, I raised in the House the question of science parks and Northern Ireland universities. I am glad to say that my approach eventually bore fruit, and that in the last week or so a science park has been launched in my constituency. It will deal with research and development. That is very praiseworthy, but if products emerge, how on earth are we to retain the factories in the United Kingdom that make those products unless, within the European system, we can match the tax rates applying in other countries?
  I can see all the research and development work done in my constituency moving to Cork—or perhaps to Belgium or Turkey, where my local textile industry is going. It is going there for a variety of reasons—not all tax reasons, and not all the reasons cited by the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood). I thought that the right hon. Gentleman was somewhat wide of the mark, in that he omitted the relative costs of wages involved in production. Hundreds of my constituents are employed in making goods for Marks and Spencer, and I took a keen interest in what the right hon. Gentleman was saying, but I thought a good deal of it was highly inaccurate. I wish he had remained to hear me say that.
  My main reason for speaking in the debate, however, relates not to those matters but to the cost of road fuel in the United Kingdom. The House will recall the anger in the streets that spilled over into demonstrations in September—demonstrations that failed at the later attempt, or were defused to a minor extent, because of action taken by the Government in recent weeks.
  724
  It is, I think, well known that Northern Ireland fuel retailers suffer rather more grievously than retailers, and indeed consumers, in Great Britain. I know many Members are vaguely aware that there is a problem; but I do not think they realise how serious it is in Northern Ireland. I am sure that not many have read the report on the subject by the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, which was published last year, or the Government's response to it.
  Members are probably even less aware of the Government's ignorance of the extent, the ramifications and the seriousness of the problem that confronts retailers of petrol and other fuels in Northern Ireland. At the end of last month, I asked the Chancellor for his estimate of the sums lost, and was referred yet again to the answer given to the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) on 20 March. That appears to be the standard answer: it has been given to me on a number of occasions. The hon. Gentleman asked whether the Chancellor would
  estimate the loss of revenue through the smuggling of petroleum products into Northern Ireland in each year since 1997.
  The Paymaster General replied:
  HM Customs and Excise assess the total revenue lost (excise duty and VAT) through cross-border shopping and smuggling of road fuels in Northern Ireland was about £100 million in 1998.—[Official Report, 20 March 2000; Vol. 346, c. 442W.]
  I did not want to know what the amount was in 1998; I wanted to find out what it was in 1999 and 2000. The Government do not appear to have upgraded their estimates of the loss of revenue during the intervening time.
  I asked the Chancellor yet again what was his estimate of the quantity of petroleum products smuggled from the Irish Republic and other countries into Great Britain
  in each of the last five years up to the latest date for which information is available.
  I was told:
  No such estimates are available.—[Official Report, 29 November 2000; Vol. 357, c. 953W.]
  The Government do not really know whether any smuggling is taking place. They have no idea.
  Why is that? Does the Treasury not think it worth while at least to put some inquiries in hand in an effort to find out what the loss of revenue is? Even if it is only £100 million, that is still a considerable sum. It would certainly take care of a lot of the public expenditure problems that we have in Northern Ireland—although that is not the way in which I view what I consider to be a loss to the whole United Kingdom economy. I prefer to look at such matters from a United Kingdom rather than a narrow Northern Ireland perspective. But I do not think that anyone in Northern Ireland believes that the estimate was accurate.
  Times have moved on. There has been a change of duty in the Irish Republic only in the last week. There has been a 1 per cent. cut in VAT, a cut in excise duty on diesel fuel of 7.3 Irish pence a litre and 2.4 Irish pence on a litre of unleaded petrol, to take effect at midnight. That, of course, related to 7 December. If it was worth your while to drive a car across the frontier and fill it up with petrol or diesel in the Irish Republic—perfectly legally—last week or the week before, it is a sight better to do it this week, and an awful lot of people are doing that.
  I hope to explain the ramifications and how serious the damage is to a huge chunk of the economy in Northern Ireland. At present, unleaded petrol in the Irish Republic

  725
  costs a maximum of 62p a litre, and can be bought for a good deal less. Diesel fuel costs 53p a litre. I am talking not about Irish pence, but about pence sterling. There is a huge gap between one price and another that someone can pay simply by driving across the border. If a similar loss were being experienced anywhere else, I think the Government would try to do something about it, for reasons that I will give later.
  Between 1995 and 1999—these are the latest figures I have—the number of vehicles in Northern Ireland rose by 108,900, an increase of 17.8 per cent. The number of heavy good vehicles rose by only 4.5 per cent.
  Those statistics prove what some of us have suspected. People move their heavy goods vehicles across the frontier into a shell company in the Irish Republic because of the huge savings in vehicle excise duty. They also benefit from the cheaper fuel. Therefore, the number of heavy goods vehicles is up slightly, but the number of other vehicles has vastly increased.
  The number of private light goods vehicles has increased by 16 per cent. and two-wheeled motor vehicles are up by 43 per cent. That is a large increase, but those vehicles do not use as much fuel as heavy goods vehicles. However, between 1995 and 1999, the consumption of diesel and petrol fell from 878,900 tonnes to 498,000 tonnes—a decrease of 380,000 tonnes, or 43 per cent. According to the Library, 100,000 tonnes of fuel contains approximately 1.36 million litres. I do not have the capacity to work out the exact loss, but the idea that the Treasury cannot work it out is ridiculous.
  I hope that I get real answers to my questions because the response so far has been outrageous. The House cannot be satisfied with it. I hope that the Treasury will take on board what I am saying and give me a proper answer. According to my rough calculations, smuggling caused the loss of £220 million of revenue in 1999. The problem is worse now. The loss is huge and it accumulates over the years at about that rate. It does not take long until the immense sum of £1 billion is lost to the United Kingdom Exchequer.
  Some of the activities are perfectly legal. People drive back and forth across the border to fill their vehicles. We can live with that, but we cannot live with smuggling. People who drive up to 40 miles to the border to fill their vehicles and return with two or three cans of fuel in the boot are able to run their vehicles for a week before they go back to fill up again. The trouble is, however, that they are not only filling up their vehicles with fuel, but doing their shopping. The economic loss to the whole retail sector in Northern Ireland is enormous. That problem has to be addressed.
  Everyone buying in the Republic pays for their shopping by credit card and, because there are 1.28 Irish punts to the pound sterling, it is well worth doing. In Northern Ireland, Tesco and Sainsbury are dropping their price to 70p or 80p a litre, but that is squeezing smaller businesses in an unjustifiable way that I bitterly resent.
  The Government announced in the Queen's Speech that they would introduce a raft of Bills to get tough on crime. Some hon. Members referred to the yob culture at which that legislation is aimed, but I am concerned about massive thuggery. Criminal activity in fuel smuggling occurs on a huge scale and it has not been tackled to any extent. The real beneficiaries of that smuggling operation, which accounts for perhaps £100 million a year in lost
  726
  revenue, are the terrorist organisations, and it is being conducted almost exclusively by the Provisional IRA. Are the Government not tackling the problem because they do not want to annoy that organisation too much in case it does something nasty?
  The Select Committee was perfectly clear on the matter last year. In its report, the Financial Secretary said that the problems were brought home to him
  on 7 October when I met the Petrol Retailers Association.
  He went on to say:
  The Institute of Petroleum has confirmed that it cannot provide sales data nor can this be obtained from the major oil companies.
  The Committee recommended that the Department of Economic Development should seek information and investigate the problem. Why has that not been done?
  The Minister also agreed that there were strong signs of changes in purchasing behaviour because of the price differential. Time has moved on and it is clear that there is a real problem. There is a massive criminal operation and loss of revenue to the United Kingdom. That revenue fuels the activities of the terrorist organisations, principally the Provisional IRA. It is long past the time when the Government should have made a serious effort to destroy that criminal conspiracy and to overcome the real problem.
  The Economic Secretary said in the Select Committee report that the loss of
  £100 million in the context of £21 billion overall from fuel duties as a whole is really a very, very small part of the overall picture.
  So it is of the overall picture for the UK, but it is not small for people who own filling stations or grocery shops, or who are retailers of almost any consumable good, within 20 or 30 miles of the frontier in Northern Ireland. It is a huge economic and social problem that has to be dealt with. I do not want the Government telling me what they have done to prevent the abuse; I just want it stopped. The Government have the resources of this powerful and wealthy nation to deal with the problem. Will they please get on with it before everyone who is affected by the criminal activity of massive fraud, which has been going on for far too long, is ruined by it.
  8.27 pm
  Mr. Andrew Miller: I have been listening to an extraordinary debate. The right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) complained about the marketplace and demanded intervention on the price of housing and the shortage of public sector workers. He seemed to have forgotten that the Government have successfully reduced unemployment in his constituency to such an extent that there is a problem, which has been acknowledged, but that is what markets do. I would have thought that he, more than anyone, would have recognised that.
  The right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) claimed to have fathered Prudence, and the right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Portillo) waltzed us through the past and rewrote history. He failed to acknowledge that we have gone through the little gate—"portillo" is the only Spanish word I know; it means little gate—and entered a large room. In that room, which is a bit like the Tardis, we have discovered the truth of Conservative policies: massive under-investment, bigger debts, mass unemployment and national despair. He seemed to have forgotten that.

  727
  I do not want to approach matters in the same way. Instead, I want to look at the reality in my constituency. The principal actions of the Government have created economic stability by giving the Bank of England independence and implementing tough fiscal rules. In some respects, the first two years of this Administration were painful in my constituency, but we are now beginning to see real benefits as a result of falling unemployment and massive reductions in mortgage rates, and those benefits will be sustained. Employment for all is becoming a reality.
  Ironically, as I said during the statement on the Vauxhall problem in Luton, it is not more than a handful of years ago that parts of my constituency suffered from mass unemployment. The figures in some wards were immoral and were in excess of 20 per cent. As a result of a partnership between local government, central Government and the private sector, we have seen significant investment that has brought about an economic revival. There are still some problems to which I will refer, and I should be grateful if those on the Treasury Bench would take note of some of my suggestions.
  We have seen public service investment and, quite rightly, it has been focused on areas of great need such as health, education and law and order. However, for many of those projects, investment takes a long time to come through. It is not possible to build overnight the mental health hospital that has been so desperately needed in my constituency. We cannot refurbish overnight the accident and emergency unit at the Countess of Chester hospital, but it has now been done. We cannot re-establish overnight—and not at all under the previous Administration—the primary care surgery in the Westminster ward of my constituency. Under the previous Administration it was regarded as a no-hope area, a small backwater that did not really matter. That, coupled with the fact that it was a one-doctor practice, meant that it did not matter. That surgery is now working and is properly equipped to a high standard, but it has taken time.
  We are now seeing significant reductions in child and pensioner poverty. Contrary to what was said by the right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea, pensioners in my constituency positively welcomed the Chancellor's statement about pension changes. Many of my pensioners are on small occupational pensions. Many of those from the blue-collar sector only joined their schemes in the mid-1970s when the actions of a Labour Government made that possible. Consequently, they are retiring on the occupational pension of half a working life, so the amounts are fairly low. When they have that and their state benefits, it is positively to their advantage to receive additional payments such as the £200 winter fuel allowance, free television licences and free eye tests, all outside the tax regime. It more than compensates them for some of the rather silly ideas that we have heard from the Opposition this week.
  I want to consider the attitude of pensioners. I have been talking to pensioners and they have said that they do not trust the Conservative party. I would be the first to admit that in my constituency, there was uproar at the impact of the first two years of inherited Tory spending plans and the figures that emerged as a result of relatively
  728
  low inflation, but pensioners have said unequivocally that they do not want to go back to what they had in the 1980s under the previous Government.
  My town is dominated by the petrochemical industry and, as is the pattern in virtually every petrochemical town throughout the western world, small pockets of housing were built in close proximity to the industry where the chemical workers originally lived. As the industry has become more prosperous, and as a function of technology there are fewer people, those pockets of housing are now areas of quite severe poverty. My constituency has five wards in the poorest 10 per cent. of household income category in the country. Some of the Government's programmes have helped to raise the base level for those families. The application of various phases of the single regeneration budget, under both this Government and the previous Administration, have been helpful. Neighbourhood renewal has been helpful, too. Recently, we have had some fantastic help as a result of the introduction of the education action zone in the constituency and a massive public-private partnership to redevelop five derelict schools. The development of sure start and other programmes has also been helpful.
  I urge the Government to look at those programmes in a holistic manner, so that the formulae by which they are applied keep pushing up the levels in a particular community. It is difficult to attract new high-tech industries to move close to such areas. Realistically, they will go not there, but will go to locations a little further away. However, we have been able to bring up employment opportunities from a very low base. We are beginning to get closer to full employment than anyone ever envisaged, but we must keep pushing because simply leaving the market to run riot will not solve the problem.
  I was therefore a little disappointed when SRB6 was refused, when the neighbourhood renewal fund formula was announced last fortnight and when a relatively low settlement was announced under the local government finance formula. When they consider such pockets of deprivation, I urge the Government to look at the problem in a holistic way, to ensure that projects that have been supported through the SRB and the neighbourhood renewal fund are not damaged, and that the progress that has been made over the years is not wasted. That is an important observation in the context of communities such as mine.
  The other point that I want to make arose as a result of the earlier discussion on Vauxhall. We need some significant infrastructure investment. It is absurd that all the major chemical and vehicle manufacturing plants within the constituency are almost at the most congested part of the M6, with traffic going southwards to where the major markets are. As a result of the years of under-investment in rail freight by the previous Administration, none of the plants in that area has any resource to move goods and services by rail. That is crazy.
  Vauxhall, Kemira, Shell and Associated Octel all have railway sidings leading into their plants, but as a result of under-investment in rail freight, more and more products have gradually shifted to the road. The effect is to create a bottleneck on the M6, which in turn blocks access to the market for many other businesses in the region. Again, a holistic approach is needed. I have made that point to my hon. Friends in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and through the regional

  729
  development agency. We need to ensure that programmes in communities such as mine are supported from all angles. The Government can have an impact.
  Fantastic progress has been made over the past few years. I did not believe that we would hit those unemployment figures as quickly as we have. I did not believe that we would see young single mothers reaching out for the new opportunities that have emerged as a result of investment by the private sector in partnership with the benefits that can be obtained through the working families tax credit.
  We have had some exciting changes. There is some huge investment in training; work is done with colleges in the community and with local industry. Those changes need continued support so that pockets of poverty such as those I have described are not given money periodically and then ignored. There must be a sustained effort to support them until they can support themselves within the vibrant new economy that is developing as a result of the Government's efforts.
  8.40 pm
  Mr. Stephen Dorrell: I begin by declaring an interest as a director and shareholder of a manufacturing business which has been the subject of some discussion during the debate. However, I shall not focus on that this evening.
  I begin by reflecting on the fact that, as someone who has been in this place for more than 20 years, I find it slightly bizarre to see the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer parading not just around this country but around international meetings too, as though they were long-standing, experienced advocates of the merits of an open free enterprise economy.
  I listened with respect, as I always do, and almost always in agreement to my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) who remarked on the irony of the fact that the Prime Minister now regularly reminds us of the benefits of a low-tax economy and a flexible labour market. The Chancellor of the Exchequer rarely loses an opportunity to lecture us on the benefits of monetary stability and his old friend fiscal prudence. Like my right hon. Friend, every time I hear that in this place and on television I wonder what those two estimable people were doing when those important ideas for the development of an open, competitive, liberal market economy were being fought through in the teeth of vehement opposition from Labour Members, including some who have attended today's debate.
  Mr. MacShane: The right hon. Gentleman will recall the famous remark that was made in the 19th century about catching the Whigs bathing and walking away with their clothes. Is not the problem for the right hon. Gentleman's party that they have to find some new clothes that will once again attract the electorate?
  Mr. Dorrell: No. As I intend to argue, not least of the reasons why it is bizarre to hear Labour Ministers and Members arguing the case for a liberal, competitive, open market economy is that when one compares what they do in practice with what they advocate in theory one finds a significant divorce between their words and their actions. I shall go on to develop that argument. It is not so much that the Prime Minister and the Chancellor have stolen the
  730
  Whigs' clothes when they were bathing; it is that that they like disporting themselves in front of the mirror, but never actually go into the sea.
  When the labour market was being liberalised and trade union reform was being fought through in the teeth of bitter opposition, where were the friends of labour market flexibility? When we were arguing the case, year by year, for reducing the direct tax burden on the wealth-creating sector—whether through income tax cuts or corporation tax cuts—where were those who now say that such cuts are important parts of British economic policy? Where were they when the Tory Governments of the 1980s and 1990s were arguing through those changes? As the House knows, they were in the No Lobby. Where were they when battles were being won against the inflationary pressures that we inherited in the late 1970s? Once again, they were in the No Lobby.
  The first point to remember when we hear Ministers make the case about the importance of liberal market reform is that they are the Johnny-come-lately to the policy. They picked up the brief after the difficult case has been won.
  It was interesting to hear the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) say that he did not believe it was possible that a stable, successful, competitive economy might improve opportunities for his constituents in the way that it has. Of course, his bewilderment as economic success improves the life chances of his constituents was shared throughout his party when the reforms were being introduced.
  However, that is history. It is more important, especially as we approach the next general election, to reflect on where those people were when the changes were being driven through. Moreover, how credible are they now as guardians of the economy? How credible are they as the people who should continue the process of improving economic competitiveness in the increasingly competitive global marketplace where Britain has to earn its living, now and in the future?
  No Conservative Member should need any persuading when it comes to the importance of sound money and sound public finance, of low taxes and flexible markets. I suspect that the Chancellor thinks sometimes that we need to be persuaded, but we take the importance of those things as read. We want to know whether those on the present Treasury Bench believe the rhetoric that they use, and whether, when the tough choices have to be made, they will deliver the policy about which they are prone to wax so lyrical when no cost is attached.
  I shall go through the four tests that the Government have specified; I do not think that those on the Treasury Bench will dissent when I list them. They are the tests of sound money, sound public finance, low taxes and flexible markets. I have heard those tests listed so often that I cannot believe that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury will leap to the Dispatch Box and say, "No, that is not our policy." The right hon. Gentleman does not always speak with the full-throated admiration of all his Back-Bench Members, but what Minister ever does? I think that Ministers would seek to apply the four tests that I have listed to their policies.
  First, I shall deal with what is, from the Government's point of view, the easy test—the test of sound money. In fact, I shall offer a degree of bipartisanship on that question. The Government are entitled to credit for having

  731
  increased the independence of the Bank of England, and for entrenching the discipline of counter-inflationary policy.
  I can see that the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) wants to leap to his feet and ask when I espoused a policy of sound money. Before he does, I must say that I think my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) would bear witness to the fact that I advocated that policy somewhat before some other members of my party did. However, I give credit to the Chancellor for his introduction of the policy.
  I also give credit to my right hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Portillo), one of whose first actions when he became shadow Chancellor was to make it clear that the Conservative party did not wish to oppose the principle of sound money. It is a very important principle, and I offer considerable support to the Government for the fact that they have taken us down that road. Putting an end to the notion of political money was an important step forward in the delivery of a liberal and competitive economic environment. There is broad, all-party agreement that the five-decade experiment with political money was an abject failure.
  In case it is thought that I am offering unqualified support for every aspect of this part of Government policy, I must say that the independence of the Monetary Policy Committee of the Bank of England would be significantly enhanced if almost all its members did not require the Chancellor's say-so before their appointment was agreed.
  In addition, I think that the Monetary Policy Committee's independence, and the basis of knowledge on which it makes its decisions, would be substantially enhanced if we introduced into our structure something more closely akin to the American Federal Reserve or the old German Bundesbank. Those bodies sought to ensure that different interests from the real economy were represented in the monetary policy decision-making process. However, with those qualifications, I offer the Government reasonably high marks when it comes to the sound money test, the first of the four that I want to discuss.
  The second test is the test of sound public finance, about which my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon had something to say. He reflected on the declining reputation of Prudence, and said that it had been substantially qualified by the way in which she has been misused by the present Chancellor of the Exchequer. It is perfectly true that, in the early years of this Parliament, the Chancellor held the growth of public spending below the level of growth of the economy as a whole. The result was a significant improvement in the inherited fiscal deficit, to the extent that there is now a significant fiscal surplus. That is welcome. However, an election has now come into view, and what we now have is in no way consistent with the rhetoric on sound public finance and prudence of which the Chancellor is so fond.
  The Government's figures show that their expectation for the years ahead is for 2.25 per cent. growth in the economy as a whole and 3.4 per cent. growth in public spending. One does not need a degree in mathematics to know that if the economy is growing at 2.25 per cent. and public spending is growing at 3.4 per cent., public spending will take a progressively larger share of the
  732
  national income for as long as that policy continues. That can only result, either now or later, in an increase in the tax burden. Despite everything that the Government say about low taxes, they are committed to increasing the tax burden to deliver a policy in which public spending accounts for a rising share of national income. A commitment to a relentless rise in the tax burden is a huge disbenefit to this country's competitiveness in the global marketplace.
  The case against the Government's policy is even more serious than that. What would happen to their plans if the economy did not grow by 2.25 per cent. as they assume that it will? The response to that question from Labour Members, and occasionally from some Ministers, is, "Well, this is a Labour Government. We can assume competence, and everything is going to be all right. Everything is for the best in the best of all possible worlds. This Government will deliver 2.25 per cent. growth, and we do not need to worry." That is spellbindingly naive.
  As my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon observed, when one is planning a business or an economy in a global marketplace, one ought to allow for the possibility that there are other influences on how that business or economy might develop, besides the decisions taken in Great George street. I am a former incumbent of those offices, and I know the illusion of grandeur and power that goes with sitting in them.
  I mean no disrespect to the Chancellor when I suggest that Mr. Alan Greenspan has at least as much influence over the world economy as the British Chancellor of the Exchequer does. Mr. Greenspan certainly does not believe that we can look forward with a totally sanguine view to stable growth in the next two or three years. He has been pursuing a tight money policy in the United States for the past few months, precisely because he is afraid that growth is running ahead too fast. Only last week, he signalled that that policy stance needed to change.
  The Government's spending plans are wrong because, even if all their best assumptions are fulfilled, they will result in an increase in the tax burden. The plans are doubly wrong because they assume that the economy will continue on a stable path, despite the fact that virtually every post brings new concerns about a potential hard landing in the United States, that there has recently been an aggressive tightening of monetary policy in Japan, and that some, but not all, parts of the eurozone have serious inflationary problems.
  I am not engaging in predictions about what will happen in 2001, but it is not difficult to find people who believe that we ought to be preparing—whether we run a Government or a business—for the possibility that markets in 2001 will be rather tougher than they have been for some years past. Wise businesses, like wise Governments, are preparing for the fact that next year will be less good than both 2000 and 1999. However, we have a Government who assume that next year will be better.
  When I wonder about the Chancellor's present relationship with Prudence, I ask why, at a time when most economy policy makers throughout the world are assuming that circumstances are likely to become more hostile next year, we alone have a Government who think that things are going to get so much better that we can launch ourselves along a public expenditure growth path that they were not prepared to countenance as prudent

  733
  during the much more favourable circumstances that prevailed—as we can see in retrospect—since 1997. Of course, perhaps I know the answer—perhaps this is an election year. That may be the full extent of the answer.
  On the second test—that of sound public finance—the Government fail partly because they are planning for higher taxes and partly because they have forgotten about the need for a safety margin. No one ever plans for the crunches; if we look back at economic history, people did not seem them coming and plan accordingly. Uncertainty and the unknown derail Government spending plans; they have often done so in the past. By removing a safety margin, the Government are heightening the risk of derailment as a result of the unknown or even—as I am arguing—not the unknown but matters on which plenty of editorials are being written. If hon. Members want to read one, they need only turn to the centre pages of today's Financial Times.
  So much for the second test; what about the third test of low taxes? It is much easier to produce an answer for that test, because the Government fail it completely. In the run-up to the previous general election, the Prime Minister repeatedly said that there was no need for tax increases; Labour were not planning tax increases and indeed, until March of this year, he said that there had been no tax increases. He appeared to be the last man in Britain who believed that to say that the tax burden had not increased under Labour was a sustainable line. However, even the Prime Minister has deserted that position; even he has been forced to admit that, under the Labour Government, the tax burden has increased, is increasing and will go on increasing.
  That seemed to come as a late surprise to Members on the Treasury Bench. Long after everyone else in Britain—people who occasionally drive on to a garage forecourt, pay a council tax bill, know what their pension fund has to pay, or have seen what has happened to the climate change levy—[Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) points out that, even now, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury does not acknowledge that. The Chief Secretary is responsible for publishing the figures. If he is not yet convinced that the tax burden is increasing, he should read his own figures. I will give him credit if he reads the figures for which he is responsible.
  As I have already noted, the Government's spending plans for the future are for a continuing increase in the tax burden. There may be political differences of view as to whether we want high or low tax and spend, but there can be no argument that at present, throughout the rest of the world, Governments are coming to the conclusion that, in order to create wealth in a competitive, global marketplace, they need to reduce the tax burdens on their wealth-creating sector.
  In Germany, one of the British Government's political soul mates has introduced major tax reform. Chancellor Schröder is a more obvious political soul mate of the Labour Government than of my party; he is cutting taxes. The French Government are cutting taxes, as are the Italian and Spanish Governments. Against that background, what are the British Government doing? They are planning not merely to increase taxes, but to build a further increase in the tax burden on to the existing increase. At the same time as the British Government are using the rhetoric of market economics, they are resolutely marching in the opposite direction from the German, French and Italian Governments—all of whom
  734
  realise that, if they are to compete successfully in today's marketplace, one of their key objectives must be to reduce the burden of taxation on their economy.
  The third test is whether the Government believe their rhetoric about low taxes. We assume that they do not, because they are certainly not putting it into practice.
  The fourth and final test applies to the Government's claim to be in favour of flexible markets. When I hear members of the present Government arguing the case for flexible markets, I do not believe that they understand what those words mean. Just as, with tax policy, they are marching in the opposite direction from our colleagues elsewhere in Europe, so with regulation and the way in which government impacts on business—what is known in shorthand as the red tape burden—the Government are resolutely increasing the burden on British business, while Governments elsewhere in the world are understanding the importance of reducing that burden.
  The list is familiar, so it may be burdensome to hon. Members if I go through it again. There is the working time directive, the part-time workers directive and the parental leave directive—and today we have another: the information consultation directive. Sometimes all that is used to make a case against the European Union, but I make no secret of the fact—I imagine most people in the House are aware of it—that I am in favour of this country's active participation in the European Union. However, I am not in favour of British Governments who accept those regulatory burdens on our business, because they reduce the competitiveness of British business in an open marketplace.
  Nor am I in favour of an interpretation of the role of the EU that sees such regulation as part of its function. What the working time directive has to do with the completion of the single market has always been a mystery to me. Some of the regulations come from the European institutions, but not all of them; some of them are home grown.
  The British Government must be the only Government in the world who think that the way to improve competitiveness and our opportunity to create wealth in a global marketplace is to introduce compulsory recognition of trade unions. I know of no other Government who think that that is the way to sharpen the competitive edge of their industrial base. Yet that is the policy of our Government. Only the British could take seriously a Government who say that they are in favour both of liberal market reform and of compulsory recognition of trade unions.
  I freely concede that Ministers use the rhetoric of liberal economics, but at the same time they pursue policies that increase the burden of public spending, which can only increase the tax burden on the economy—all at a time when our competitors are doing precisely the opposite.
  We are often asked to believe that there is now bipartisan agreement on the idea of a liberal competitive economy, and that the transformation undertaken—against vehement Labour opposition—by the Conservative Governments of 1979 to 1997 is now the subject of a broad bipartisan consensus. That view is often repeated, but it is totally wrong, and mere repetition does not make it true.
  It is true that in 1997 this country had an important competitive advantage over its major international competitors. Our economy was more liberal and flexible

  735
  than those of most of our competitors, especially those in Europe. However, the present Government have sown complacency by resting on their laurels, believing that the problem has been solved, and that there is no need to invigorate the economy further or ask how to make it more competitive and flexible, because the issue has been dealt with.
  The hon. Member for Rotherham said that the Tories had stolen the Whigs' clothing while they were away bathing—but it is our competitors who have stolen our clothing while we were bathing. Our competitive advantage is being squandered by a Government who do not believe their own rhetoric. That is the case that we will take to the country. I believe that, in many ways, that case is the most important difference between the parties. As people come increasingly to understand that case, they will understand that it is a reason to throw out a Government who have squandered such an important national advantage.
  9.5 pm
  Ms Sally Keeble: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, West (Mr. Bailey), in his absence, on his maiden speech. I was particularly interested in and appreciated his description of his constituency. In the 1980s, it witnessed the collapse of its heavy industry, which was one of my formative political experiences. His description also reminded me of the difference between the previous Conservative Government's response to that collapse—when they turned their back on unemployed people in the west midlands—and the current Government's action to tackle unemployment and get people back to work. The Government intervened at Longbridge, and they have responded positively to events in Luton.
  In many parts of the country, the Government have almost made unemployment disappear as an issue. That is down entirely to their management of the economy, and I am sure that it will probably be the single most important factor in ensuring the Government's re-election in the forthcoming general election. The Government's economic policy is the most important factor for my constituents, who have benefited from it in many ways, particularly in financial stability.
  I tell the right hon. Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell) that protecting financial stability is not a question of resting on our laurels or ensuring that we do not meddle and intervene, but of providing positive support where improvement is needed, particularly in productivity.
  Financial stability—particularly low interest rates—is desperately important for hard-working families in my constituency. Now, not only are interest rates at half the peak level reached under the Tories, but, according to a recent report in The Economist, they are at their most stable for the past 10 years. That is good news for business, and it is exceptionally good news for people in my constituency, three quarters of whom are home owners and carry substantial debt.
  Low interest rates have saved the average home owner about £800 annually and made it possible to abolish the last of mortgage interest relief at source. All serious political parties realise that MIRAS abolition—which
  736
  Conservatives Members have tried to dress up as a tax increase—was important for the long-term health of the housing market.
  Low inflation has also benefited my constituents. The fact that inflation, too, has almost disappeared from the public consciousness as a financial problem is another tribute to the Government's successful management of the economy. We are in the happy situation of enjoying a consumer boom and low inflation. It is a particularly happy economic climate for those of us who like consumer booms.
  In his speech, the shadow Chancellor said that the Government have no vision at all. Such a claim is extraordinary. Our Chancellor has relentlessly pursued the creation of a secure economy, which allows us to address all the pressing social issues.
  The shadow Chancellor also outlined his five financial disciplines. Before coming into the Chamber, I quite carefully read, in one of his recent speeches, his description of the disciplines. I had thought that two of them were new. However, as the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) devised the committee of wise men, only one proposal is new. How can one present a vision for the future by proposing a series of old measures and U-turns? The Chancellor has offered a vision of economic stability, financial security and the tackling of social issues, which is important for the families in my constituency.
  I especially welcome the children's tax credit, which comes into effect in April. It is true that some of the people who have lost their married couples allowance will not be entitled to the children's tax credit, but if we are to have a mature political debate, we must consider what the Government's priorities should be. All the evidence suggests that the financial pressures are on families with children. That is why I support the Government's policy of giving them the lion's share of the financial benefits.
  I wanted to make sure that the Conservative party had nothing to say about children, so I looked up the policy section on its website. When we tapped in "Children", the message was, "Sorry, your search terms has found no matches. Please try a broader term." We tapped in "Human being", but we found nothing on that either.
  I can assure my right hon. Friend the Chancellor that among my constituents, particularly among the women, there is a high level of knowledge about the children's tax credit and the income level needed to qualify. With an average income of £19,600, people in my constituency tend to know what benefits they will receive. In addition to the extra almost £5 a week in child benefit, many people in my constituency with children will get at least £10 a week extra, and there is more for people on modest incomes. About 3,000 families in Northampton get the working families tax credit.
  On unemployment and the working families tax credit, one of the reasons why the old family credit would not deal with all the problems caused by unemployment is that it does not include the child care tax credit. The Conservative party has given no assurances on that. I assure the shadow Chancellor, in case he does not realise it, that lone parents can get out to work only if their child care is paid for. The child care tax credit has been essential for that, as has the availability of personal advisers on the new deal scheme, which has made it

  737
  possible for women who have not worked for many years to get advice, help and access to child care, and to get it paid for.
  In my constituency, unemployment has been mercifully low for a long time, but lone parents have always found it hard to get work. That situation is changing. I have spoken to lone parents who have not been out to work for 10 or 15 years, and who are now £60 to £65 a week better off because of the combined effect of the working families tax credit, the child care tax credit and the new deal.
  I welcome the measures in the Queen's Speech that will help home buyers. I hope that there will be more legislation in future to protect home buyers from the kind of problems associated with endowment mortgages, and to make the capital invested in their home more accessible to home owners during retirement, when basic maintenance can become a problem. I assure my right hon. Friend the Chancellor that my constituents take up such concessions to home owners. Many of them have spoken to me about taking advantage of the VAT reduction to insulate their homes.
  I recognise that time is short, but I shall mention a couple more points. The first concerns savings. The Opposition made much of the changes to the savings ratio, but all the projections from the Treasury suggest that it will increase. I pay tribute to the work done to develop individual savings accounts, which all the reports from the industry suggest have not merely served as a replacement for PEPs and TESSAs, but have encouraged more people to save. It is clear that in future the savings habit will become more important, especially in relation to pensions. Of course, families that have savings have some protection against the problems that people run into when they get into debt or when a cash crisis arises.
  Barclays home loans division has done a huge amount of work on this subject. Family breakdown is one of the main problems that gives rise to debt. The work that the Government have done to support families, for example, by sharing family tax credits between parents and recognising the work of step-parents, is extremely important. It is helping to ensure that families can deal with some of these problems.
  On debt and savings, we need to get people into the habit of saving for their pensions. The shadow Chancellor mentioned that, and said that the Conservatives intended to let young people opt out of paying national insurance. In doing so, they would ignore two difficulties. One is the loss of money to the national insurance fund, which would amount to about £2 billion, I think. The other difficulty is what will happen to people who pull out of national insurance, but then pull out of the alternative. The Financial Services Authority report suggests that, over 10 years, that will happen to about 5 per cent. of the people.
  How would the Conservatives deal with those people who ended up with no provision? Would they compel people to take out alternative pensions? If people did not end up with a pension, would the Conservatives say, "Right. You won't have anything." Would they leave such people out completely, which would result in acute pensioner poverty for future generations? The industry recognises that issue. It opposes compulsion and recognises the need for a safety net.
  In conclusion, I congratulate the Government on the Queen's Speech, in particular, the financial provisions. They will be extremely successful. They are part of a
  738
  continuing trend, which is providing increased economic well-being and financial security for the many families in my constituency and throughout the country.
  9.17 pm
  Mr. Roger Casale: I add my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, West (Mr. Bailey) on his excellent maiden speech. I was reminded as he spoke of the time just before the general election when I addressed my constituents and gave them an account of why support for the Tory party there, which had historically been strong, was slipping away so quickly. What was eating away at that support in 1996–97 was the great perception among Tory voters of the social and economic costs of Tory mismanagement of the economy; Tory disdain for public services; and the failure to put in place any effective measures to enable people who had been damaged by the deep Tory recessions to rebuild their lives and reconnect themselves with the world of work.
  I pointed out that the cost of the social security budget had soared from £50 billion to more than £90 billion. I could have added comments about the soaring levels of public debt, records levels of interest rates and inflation. I asked the voters of Wimbledon to trust Labour to do better. They put their trust in us in May 1997 and Labour has delivered—it has delivered in Britain and in Wimbledon.
  On jobs, 325 young people in my constituency have started work thanks to the new deal. On class sizes, no five, six or seven-year-olds are taught in classes of more than 30 in Merton schools. This year, Merton local education authority was among the five most improved education authorities in Britain on educational standards thanks to the local literacy and numeracy strategies.
  Hospital waiting lists at St. George's hospital and St Helier hospital are coming down. We have new accident and emergency units and we have a walk-in centre in Tooting. On crime, we have new closed circuit television in Wimbledon town centre. On transport, we have seen the refurbishment of the Northern line. On a recent visit to the magistrates courts I found out that the time between arrest and sentencing is coming down.
  On the economy, interest rates and inflation are at all time lows. The economy is the key to these successes and will be the key to doing more in the future. That strong and stable economy, which acts as a platform for our investment in public services' has not come about by chance, it is the result of the economic policies put in place by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  The independence of the Bank of England, new fiscal rules, prudence in public finances and borrowing only to invest are the golden rules. Some of those issues are complex and technical, but everyone in Wimbledon will understand the difference in the results. They will remember, with fear and bitterness, the Tory legacy of boom and bust, record levels of bankruptcies and the fact that no community was untouched by the scourge or effects of unemployment. They will also remember record levels of interest and mortgage rates, house repossessions, negative equity and rising crime.
  That is what we mean by the Tory legacy of boom and bust. The damage to individual lives brought with it the collapse of investment in public services and the infrastructure, which has harmed all of us. In 1996–97,

  739
  42p in every £1 was spent on servicing debt and social security payments; the corresponding figure now is 17p. Money is going into the health service. Investment in the health service fell by 0.4 per cent. in 1996–97, but it is 17 per cent. higher in real terms today, and went up by 7.5 per cent. last year.
  In education, capital funding for schools has improved. In my constituency, £230 per pupil is provided for capital spending on repairing leaky roofs and windows and decrepit infrastructure, compared with £15 per pupil for capital investment in schools in Merton in 1996–97. I could go on: 16,000 pensioners have been helped by the winter fuel allowance; 500 working families have been helped by the working families tax credit; 11,500 children in Wimbledon have been helped by record increases in child benefit.
  In 1996, I asked my constituents what kind of society we wanted to live in. I will be asking them that question again, nearer the election. We have a vision of a strong society, backed by a strong economy. The Tories have no positive vision of the future; Labour does. The Queen's Speech includes further measures that will become fundamental steps towards realising that vision, and I commend it to the House.
  9.21 pm
  Mrs. Angela Browning: My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition opened the debate on the Gracious Speech on 6 December. Nothing that we have heard from Ministers in the past week has in any way altered our first impression that the Queen's Speech is all spin and no delivery.
  The Government are clearing the decks for an early election. Like the Titanic, new and big, new Labour is now sinking on its maiden voyage. All our major public services are in crisis; in rural areas, farm income is at the lowest level since the 1930s; White Papers are catalogued on both urban and rural problems; but nothing appears in the Gracious Speech. The speech is as interesting for what it omits as for what has been prioritised.
  Under errors and omissions, we must look at the dear, departed Bills that are a ghost of Government promises, such as the promised consumer Bill. The Government published a White Paper entitled "Modern Markets: Confident Consumers" in July 1999. Launching it, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry said:
  I am also proposing new legislation to take tough action against fraudsters and powers to deal with new scams quickly.
  However, there is no consumer Bill in the Queen's Speech. Labour published a White Paper on licensing reform on 10 April this year, an advance copy of which was briefed to The Times on 13 March, where it appeared as the lead front page story. Again, no legislation was introduced. On urban renewal, there is clearly no sign of a Bill to introduce the policies in the urban White Paper.
  What happened to the voting systems? Before the election, the Prime Minister said:
  We have made it clear all the way through that we are committed to a referendum and we are committed to it as part of our programme for the next Parliament.
  That was in the Financial Times in February 1997, but there is not a word about it in what is likely to be the last Session of this Parliament.
  740
  There is no Bill on housing. The Government published a Green Paper on housing in April 2000 but, again, they have failed to deliver on their promises. The House will therefore not be surprised that we are somewhat sceptical of the papers that the Government produce in the hope that people will read them and be encouraged to take action. The Government print them, but they do not take any action.
  Interestingly, something which we might have expected because it would undoubtedly not have taken up much time in the House, almost certainly having cross-party support, would have been a law on vaccine damage payments. On 27 June 2000, the Secretary of State for Social Security said:
  We shall legislate at the earliest available opportunity.—[Official Report, 27 June 2000; Vol. 352, c. 719.]
  Again, that is a glaring omission from the Gracious Speech.
  With regard to the rights of victims, new Labour, on page 23 of their document "Because Britain Deserves Better"—that has a somewhat hollow ring four years later—states:
  We will ensure that victims are kept fully informed of the progress of their case, and why charges may have to be downgraded or dropped.
  The Prime Minister, in his conference speech this year, said:
  victims should get full information about the progress of their case … another big project for the second term of a Labour government.
  Promises, promises. Unfortunately for new Labour, that second term looks less likely than it might have done four years ago.
  Throughout the debate on the Queen's Speech, not just Conservative Members but Labour Members have expressed disappointment at the errors and omissions. The right hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) was disappointed that the civil service had no statutory code under which to operate. The right hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) pleaded with the Government on behalf of the steel industry, but his pleas, too, have been ignored by the Government.
  The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) said:
  Sadly, there has been no continuation of the bonfire of the quangos and agencies.—[Official Report, 6 December 2000; Vol. 359, c. 57.]
  If this had been a Conservative Queen's Speech, there would have been a jolly big bonfire of quangos and agencies.
  The hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Michie) said:
  I am merely reminding the Government that we have to keep in touch with our electorate and with reality.—[Official Report, 6 December 2000; Vol. 359, c. 69]
  [Interruption.] Labour Members seem to regard the words of their colleagues as a joke. I am quoting from Hansard.
  The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mr. Purchase) said:
  The Queen's Speech does not contain a commitment to legislate on housing, transfer of stock and arm's-length companies.—[Official Report, 6 December 2000; Vol. 359, c. 78.]
  In other words, there is great disappointment among those on the Government Benches as well as in the country at the Government's omissions. Those expressions of

  741
  disappointment from Labour Members come simply from the first day of the debate on the Queen's Speech. Had I ploughed through Hansard I could doubtless have found four or five more pages of such expressions of disappointment, but 1 think that we have the message from Labour Members. They are disappointed by the Gracious Speech, but, however disappointed they are, they are not half as disappointed as those outside the House are with the Government.
  I could talk about many Bills, but I will not do so tonight. However, it is worth mentioning those in the Gracious Speech which are recycled, not least a regulatory reform Bill, one of our little regulars which pops up in each Queen's Speech and nothing is done about it, but here it is again this year. It would be interesting to see whether, in the confines of what we anticipate will be rather a short Session, the Bill will have sufficient priority to complete all its stages before the general election.
  The Government flagged up law and order in the Queen's Speech as an important issue. They pledged to introduce a Bill to tackle anti-social behaviour and alcohol-related crime by giving the police power to impose fixed penalty fines. That is yet another pledge that will not be met. The Government said that they would tackle anti-social behaviour and youth crime, but young people are still committing large numbers of criminal offences and communities are terrorised by persistent young offenders. Again, it is all spin and no delivery.
  We have seen in previous Sessions of this Parliament the Government's rather paltry attempts to act on that matter, about which there is great concern throughout the country, but under the Government crime rose last year by 190,000 offences, the first rise in six years. In addition, there was a large increase in the number of robberies, despite the Government's promise to reduce them, and the pledge to be tough on crime has been nothing but spin.
  The Government have done nothing to increase the number of police officers on the street. There are now 3,000 fewer police officers than when they came to office in 1997. How hollow it seems to say that police officers will apprehend criminals if they are not around when the pubs turn out to deal with the people causing problems.
  As I said, we are discussing a recycled issue. Curfew orders were introduced in January 1999, although none have been issued. Only 130 anti-social behaviour orders have been issued. It was interesting to hear one hon. Member say that nine orders had been issued in his constituency. I am sure that he is grateful for that, but the level of crime and people's anxieties warrant more than merely the 130 anti-social behaviour orders that have been issued. The Government have not given the police the support that they deserve. Not only have police numbers been reduced, special constables are also down by 10,000, which puts more strain on people in regular service.
  My right hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor opened today's debate on the economy, which is an appropriate subject with which to conclude consideration of the Queen's Speech. We have demonstrated clearly that the Government are all spin and no delivery. They have no vision for the next Parliament and can campaign only on their record, which is poor. As we have heard—I know that Labour Members do not like to be reminded of this—the Prime Minister said that he had
  no plans to increase tax at all.
  742
  However, under the Government the tax burden has risen to 37.8 per cent. of national income—an increase since the election of 2.6 per cent. That is the equivalent of an extra lop in the pound on income tax, which is a tax increase by anybody's standards.
  The Government also say that they are committed to increasing spending during the next three years at a much faster rate than the growth of the economy. My hon. Friends have referred to that commitment during today's debate, but it does not seem to matter to the Government, especially the Chancellor, who seems to think that the Government can fall in behind the spin that they have put on our national economy, and believe their own figures.
  Additional taxes have been imposed on business, as well a greater burden through the cost of red tape. In today's debate, many hon. Members from all parties have spoken about the economy, different sectors of manufacturing industry and businesses throughout the country. It is, therefore, interesting that Labour Members merely dismiss the extra regulatory and taxation burden that has been imposed on business and its consequences—of course, there are, ultimately, consequences.
  The savings ratio is now 3 per cent., which is its lowest level since 1963. I should point out something for the benefit of the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Mr. Beard), who said that the savings ratio is not much talked about in the pubs in his constituency. His constituents should know, even if he does not, that when the savings ratio drops, it means that they have lost all incentive to put money aside for a rainy day, retirement or ill health. That has an effect on their day-to-day lives.
  Mr. Beard: That may not be the explanation at all. Those people may be content and confident of the future, and might not feel the need to lay down savings.
  Mrs. Browning: I suspect that, as they are paying more taxes, they have less money in their pockets on a Friday night. When deciding what to do with their residual income, they have too little to think of popping into the building society and putting a bit away on a Saturday morning. That is the reality of life in the hon. Gentleman's constituency and especially in mine, which has a high population of elderly people who are prudent and cautious.
  On the subject of prudence, what a marvellous service my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) rendered the House by exposing the fact that Prudence is a fallen woman. We shall all remember his words, and it is up to the Chancellor to save Prudence and restore her reputation because, under his care and patronage, Prudence is in the gutter.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) outlined the chaos in the public services and the manufacturing sector, speaking particularly about many organisations and businesses in his constituency that he has visited. On hearing his words, we all reflected on the fact that the same remarks could be made about all our constituencies, no matter which side of the House we sit on.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell) spoke not only with the benefit of his experience as a former Treasury and Cabinet Minister, but as a person with experience at the sharp end—working in and representing manufacturing industries. He spoke

  743
  about the way that the Government have changed the flexibility of our labour markets, mentioning in particular the fact that not only has the social chapter been introduced under this Government, but that trade unions have received statutory recognition. I can assure him and the House that, when we come to office next year, we shall abolish the statutory recognition of trade unions. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!] Labour Members say "Oh!", but that announcement has been made many times and met with acclaim out there in the real world.
  I pay tribute to the contribution of the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross), who spelled out the problem of fuel prices in Northern Ireland and people whizzing to and fro across the border with the Republic to buy petrol because of the pressure that those prices put on them. I also pay tribute to the hon. Member for West Bromwich, West (Mr. Bailey) and take great pleasure in welcoming him to his place. I congratulate him on his maiden speech, which I hope will be the first of many other speeches, and look forward to engaging with him on some of the more contentious issues that he mentioned. However, I am generous enough to overlook them tonight.
  During the debates on the Queen's Speech, Labour Members have flattered us by being more interested in discussing Conservative policies than the Government's legislative programme. It is no surprise that first out of the traps is the Hunting Bill. That shows how the Government prioritise the matters that they think are important to the country: not the big law and order issues or the Children's Commissioner for Wales—[Interruption.] The Leader of the House shakes her head. I have made those remarks publicly several times this week, so has she been shamed into changing the batting order? I would be pleased to hear that she has changed her mind.
  The Government have shown their instinct by what they have put at the top of their list in what is probably the last Session of this Parliament: not children, not law and order and not the yob culture, but foxes. That says all that there is to say about the priorities and values of this Administration. Hunting and the gerrymandering of the procedures of the House are, apparently, their only true objectives. The country is six days closer to an election than when the Queen's Speech debate began. I am delighted to have wound-up the debate—I hope without winding up the Government too much—and all I can say to Labour Members is, "Tally ho!"
  9.38 pm
  The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): We have had a useful series of debates in which many and varied contributions have been made. Given that we are looking back over six days, I cannot mention every Member who has spoken, and I apologise for that, but it is right to refer at once to my three hon. Friends who made maiden speeches. As the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) was gracious enough to say, each contributed extremely well and I am sure that we shall hear from them again, and often. The whole House welcomes them to our proceedings. As my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, West (Mr. Bailey) pointed out, the presence of my hon. Friends may be a clear signal of people's concern about the £24 million of cuts that the Conservative party seeks to inflict on every
  744
  constituency in the country. That message deserves—and, I assure the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton, it will receive—much wider circulation.
  Inevitably, the background to the six days of debate has been the condition of our country; the specific focus has been on the proposals in the Queen's Speech. One thing that is clear from the past six days, without any shadow of doubt, is that the Conservative party's briefing is headlined "All spin and no delivery".
  The Leader of the Opposition—he was the first to use the phrase, but I think that every Conservative Member has used it at some point—chose to describe some of my hon. Friends as Lobby fodder. As I watched Opposition Members line up to be mown down by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I thought "cannon fodder" might be the right term for them.
  Today's proceedings started with an extraordinary speech from the shadow Chancellor. He began by saying that the number of Bills included in the Queen's Speech showed the Government to be devoid of ideas, a point echoed by the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major). A number of Opposition Members wanted to add more. Over the past few days they have cited measures which they claim the Government promised to introduce but which are not included, and—somehow—a further list of measures which they say they would themselves introduce. The hon. Member for Southend, as we must now learn to call him—[HON. MEMBERS: "Southend, West."] I beg his pardon; I mean the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess). I am so used to referring to him as the hon. Member for Basildon, which he was until he thought better of it.
  Anyway, the hon. Gentleman called for more or less a whole legislative programme of his very own. By a remarkable coincidence, his hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton) called for the very same programme. Perhaps that too was in the Conservative party briefing.
  Having spent all last year criticising us for producing too much legislation, and for the fact that too much was mentioned in the Queen's Speech, this year the Conservative party has criticised us for the opposite. Of course one can never win with the Tories, but that shows why we must all hope that they never do. It would be unwise to expect consistency from a party that, on the one hand, criticises us for investing too much in public services and, on the other—in every speech and in every constituency—demands more.
  Both the shadow Chancellor and the right hon. Member for Huntingdon overlooked an inconvenient fact. Fifteen Bills are mentioned in the Queen's Speech; both of them have clearly forgotten that only 15 were mentioned in the 1992 Queen's Speech. That was a post-election Queen's Speech, relating to an 18-month parliamentary term. Thirteen Bills were included in the 1994 Queen's Speech, and 16 in that of 1995. I do not think we need to hear any more rubbish about the length of the Queen's Speech being an indication of the Government's having run out of steam.
  The Queen's Speech conveys a strategic framework—the legislative spine—beyond which there is a full programme of delivery. Given the context, and given many of the speeches we have heard, I think it right to contrast that with the proposals of the Conservative party. It was, after all, only a year or so ago that they announced

  745
  their five guarantees. There was the patients guarantee, the parents guarantee, the sterling guarantee, the "can work, must work" guarantee and, of course, the tax guarantee.
  A year later, how many of those guarantees survive? As I understand it, none—not one. They all seem to have gone. To lose one guarantee may be regarded as a misfortune; to lose two certainly looks like carelessness; but to lose three looks like Conservative party policy. What was that about "all spin and no delivery"? With the Tories, it is all guesswork and no guarantees.
  But of course the Tories have always been like it. The shadow Chancellor and the right hon. Member for Huntingdon both looked back to the golden age when they were so successfully in power. The shadow Chancellor told us that the Tories would increase investment and cut taxes; the right hon. Member for Huntingdon talked of what they did in the 1980s and 1990s. Let me remind the Tories of what they did in the 1980s and 1990s in regard to investment and tax cuts. Yes, there were occasional years in which, on a one-off basis, spending on public services rose; but was there a consistent combination of investment and tax cuts? I do not think so. That did not happen, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Mr. Beard) ably demonstrated.
  The shadow Chancellor said that his party's policy was based on honesty and transparency. In 1983, which was a general election year, the Conservatives cut taxes a month before the election. They cut spending the month after. Does the right hon. Gentleman remember that equally well? In 1987, they cut taxes before the election, but the spending that they promised during the election failed to materialise. In 1992, they told us that they could improve public services and cut taxes, but then they gave us 22 tax increases because of the black hole in their finances, to which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer referred. Because they had boom and bust in the economy, they delivered boom and bust in public services.
  The right hon. Member for Huntingdon claimed credit for our inheritance. What about theirs? What about the windfall benefits of North sea oil?
  Mr. Portillo: Oh no.
  Mrs. Beckett: I am so pleased to have upset the shadow Chancellor. He will be even more upset in a second. By 1997, the Tory Government had had the equivalent in today's money of £35 million every single day of the week for a solid 17 years. I shall say that again in case the right hon. Gentleman has forgotten: £35 million every single day for 17 solid years. That was the opportunity given to the Conservatives, but they never delivered a sustained and stable programme of long-term investment in Britain.
  When faced with such unpalatable facts, the Opposition cannon fodder abdicate the debate and vaguely claim that it is all spin. It is the argument of a party that has no argument. Neither is their claim borne out by the facts or by the experience of millions of people throughout the country who, under this Government, have witnessed significant change for the better in many things that matter in their lives. They have seen much done, although we all recognise that there is much more still to do.
  The shadow Chancellor went even further than saying that it was all spin: he claimed that the Government had failed utterly to improve the position that we inherited or
  746
  to perform what we promised. Let us examine that contention. We said that we would restore the public finances. We inherited annual borrowing of £28 billion, and we shall deliver a £6 billion surplus in 2001. We said that we would tackle inflation, and it is now the lowest in the European Union, with the lowest underlying inflation rate in this country since records began in 1975. We said that we would try to tackle unemployment, and it is lower now than it has been for 25 years. My hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Judy Mallaber) quoted a reduction in unemployment in her constituency of 40 per cent., and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberavon (Sir J. Morris) cited a reduction in youth unemployment in his constituency of 86 per cent.
  Mr. Redwood: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
  Mrs. Beckett: I should be delighted to give way to the right hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Redwood: Will the right hon. Lady tell the House why there are now fewer policemen, fewer hospital beds, fewer trains, fewer trains that run on time, and a far worse mess in manufacturing, farming and fishing than there were in 1997?
  Mrs. Beckett: I did not quite catch the tail end of the right hon. Gentleman's list, but I assure him that we are conscious of the fact that, in the opening years of this Government, we needed to deal with the debt that we inherited from the Tories. Thus we were unable to put investment into public services as speedily as we had hoped. The right hon. Gentleman talked about fewer hospital beds and fewer nurses, but there would have been a lot more if the Conservative party had not cut the training programmes. We are doing our best to turn the situation around, but it takes three years to train a nurse, seven to train a doctor, and 10 years to provide a road building programme.
  Mrs. Eleanor Laing: Beds.
  Mrs. Beckett: Oh, I am so grateful to the hon. Lady for reminding me. Yes, indeed, for years we told the Conservatives when they were in government that the health service would suffer as a result of the cuts in beds that they introduced in every specialty. They did not listen then, and they are clearly not listening now.
  I shall return to the issue of delivery. We said that we would introduce a national minimum wage, and the Conservative party said that it would cost 2 million jobs. The Liberal Democrats said that it should be a regional minimum wage, because they wanted it to be lower in the south-west. I am not sure how often they remind their constituents of that, but there you go.
  The latest figures for the new deal show that more than our target of 250,000 young people have successfully been helped. The new deal and the windfall tax were opposed by both Opposition parties. We said that we would seek economic stability. Interest rates have varied by no more than 2.5 percentage points since May 1997, and now stand at 6 per cent., as they have for the past 10 months. We are now spending an extra £4.5 billion in real terms on pensioners, with more to come, and we have introduced the biggest ever increase in child benefit. My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North

  747
  (Ms Keeble) reminded us how important that is and the fact that the Conservative party website does not recognise the word "children". Perhaps that is why no Conservative Members mentioned it.
  The shadow Chancellor talked about class sizes. He knows that our pledge was to reduce infant class sizes, and that it is being kept. On school standards, this year 75 per cent. of 11-year-olds achieved the literacy standard for their age—up 10 per cent.—and 72 per cent. of 11-year-olds achieved the expected numeracy standard for their age—up 13 per cent.
  The in-patient waiting list is, as promised, below the level we inherited—126,000 below—and free eye tests for pensioners have been restored. All those points were made forcefully by my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Mr. Casale). I recommend to the cannon fodder on the Opposition Benches that, next time the words "all spin and no substance" rise to their lips, they reflect for a second on what the Government have already achieved and compare it with their own dismal record.
  All those things are the fruits of previous legislative and non-legislative change. When we measure that record against the Opposition's charge of no delivery, we know who is really in a flat spin to know what to say and how much notice to take of what they say about the Queen' s Speech.
  Mrs. Browning: I keep the Labour party's pledge card close to my heart. The right hon. Lady has referred to many pledges and prayed in aid the delivery of the pledges that the Government made nearly four years ago. However, is it not true that somebody else has paid the price for the delivery of the pledges that she has mentioned today? When the Government cut the class size for children under seven, children over seven pay with larger classes. When they cut the waiting lists in order to get through a lot of operations in one day, it is not the urgent or ill patients who are treated. The cardiac and cancer patients have to wait their turn while the Government deliver their pledge. That is not delivery; it is cynical, political electioneering. It is cynicism at the expense of—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady should be brief.
  Mrs. Beckett: What a lot of nonsense. The hon. Lady talks about cardiac and cancer patients, but I remind her that the principal reason why those patients have to wait is that we do not have enough consultants in those specialties. It takes seven years to train a consultant. The hon. Lady said—it is one of the most stupid points made by Opposition Members—that we have lower class sizes, but that it is paid for by increases in class size elsewhere. That is absolute rubbish. However, at least she conceded that we have lower class sizes. The shadow Chancellor said that none of our pledges had been met. Secondary school class sizes have been rising for 10 years. I do not think that Opposition Members know anything about teaching primary-age children. The notion that somebody who would be teaching Latin, maths or geography in a
  748
  secondary school will go and teach reading to infant school children just shows how out of touch they are with the real world.
  Mr. Bercow: Why, since January 1999, have 3,000 people, typically sentenced to 20 months' imprisonment, been released after only eight? I am referring to the 3,000 drug dealers on whom the Government have gone soft.
  Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman was here to contribute to the Home Office debate. He will have heard my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary deal with those points, as he does whenever Opposition Members raise them.
  The hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell (Mr. Taylor) made an interesting speech, not least when he called for a 20 per cent. devaluation of the pound. Yet again, he pretended that the Liberal Democrats' 1p on tax would have exceeded our investment record. He must know that that is nonsense. In almost every area, the Government have already delivered more than the Liberal Democrats even dared to offer.
  Alongside increased investment, the Government will go forward in the Session with a programme of work centred on improving public services and tackling crime—central not just to our programme, but to the concerns of the people of this country.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham) chairs the crime community partnership in Barnsley. He told us of the success that it had already achieved, with reported crime down by 35 or 36 per cent. in one area. In the Queen's Speech, we are bringing forward a range of measures that are aimed at combating different aspects of crime. They include crime in the streets, cracking down on the yob culture that is defacing and shaming Britain; crime on the roads, with stolen or bodged-up vehicles; crime and drugs; and crime and profits. Too many criminals are big-time professionals living high on the hog on the profits of crime, so there will be draft legislation to ensure that we confiscate their capital and that crime does not pay.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Michie) drew attention to the need to tackle rogue companies in the private security industry. The hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) confirmed that reputable companies will welcome that.
  Some large-scale crime operates through social security fraud. We have already seen a significant drop in fraud of 6.5 per cent., but, again, we will step up action on that front.
  Safety and security are about not just combating crime, but knowing that there is a proper health service for people when they need it. Our Health plan—a plan for the crown jewel of our public services—must deliver the modernisation and reform that can make best use of the unprecedented investment that we are committed to provide. It is the centrepiece of our legislative programme. It will demonstrate the stark choice before the country: that jewel re-cut, gleaming in a modern setting, providing health care for all; or what the Shadow Chancellor called a "mixed economy" health system under the Conservatives, a two-tier health service. Long-term care will be free. I note that the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) welcomed that.

  749
  We have too often overlooked the need to tackle the causes of ill health. That is why we will bring forward legislation to help to tackle smoking, which kills 120,000 people every year in this country. It is a huge charge on us all, as well as a huge waste of life. With some defined exceptions, tobacco advertising will be banned. Tobacco promotion will be banned. Over time, tobacco sponsorship will be banned.
  Although crime and health are the key priorities for the Government, the speech and the programme contain much else: measures for children with special educational and care needs; measures on housing; and an early chance to give a view on the different approaches to hunting with hounds. The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton referred to the Regulatory Reform Bill, which will give us the power to remove regulation that is accepted to be out of date and unnecessary, but that until now we needed primary legislation to replace.
  The Opposition are in theory committed to deregulation, although, as my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) told us, in practice,
  Conservative participation in the Deregulation Committee is almost nil … on many occasions not a single Conservative Member is present.—[Official Report, 6 December 2000; Vol. 359, c. 39.]
  Yet again, the theoretical commitment is there, but the practice is absent.
  Whatever the Opposition's inadequacies, the key elements in our programme underline the major choices facing Britain: the choice between economic stability and boom and bust; the choice between investment in our public services, including investment over the long term, and cuts in those services; the choice between strong communities and the idea that there is no such thing as society; the choice between leadership and isolation, as we have seen with the Conservative party's policies on Europe. What the Queen's Speech and our programme show above all is that the choice is between a Government who are about investment and planning for the long term and for the whole country, and a party that is hooked on opportunistic bandwagoning and campaigning for cuts in our public services, and is for the few rather than the many.
  Those are the choices that lie behind the legislative programme in the Gracious Speech. Those are the choices that face the people of this country and the Members of the House.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 178, Noes 326.

  Division No. 6]

  [10 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Blunt, Crispin

  Allan, Richard

  Body, Sir Richard

  Amess, David

  Boswell, Tim

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Brady, Graham

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Brake, Tom

  Baker, Norman

  Brand, Dr Peter

  Baldry, Tony

  Breed, Colin

  Ballard, Jackie

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Beggs, Roy

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Bell, Martin (Tatton)

  Burnett, John

  Bercow, John

  Burns, Simon

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Burstow, Paul

  750

  Butterfill, John

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Cable, Dr Vincent

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

  Lansley, Andrew

  Leigh, Edward

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Letwin, Oliver

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Chidgey, David

  Livsey, Richard

  Chope, Christopher

  Loughton, Tim

  Clappison, James

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Collins, Tim

  Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

  Cotter, Brian

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Cran, James

  Madel, Sir David

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Malins, Humfrey

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Maples, John

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Mates, Michael

  Day, Stephen

  Maude, Rt Hon Francis

  Donaldson, Jeffrey

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Duncan, Alan

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Moore, Michael

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Moss, Malcolm

  Evans, Nigel

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Faber, David

  Norman, Archie

  Fabricant, Michael

  Oaten, Mark

  Fallon, Michael

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Fearn, Ronnie

  Ottaway, Richard

  Flight, Howard

  Page, Richard

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Paice, James

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Pickles, Eric

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Prior, David

  Gale, Roger

  Randall, John

  Garnier, Edward

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Rendel, David

  Gibb, Nick

  Robathan, Andrew

  Gidley, Sandra

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Gill, Christopher

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Ross, William (E Lond'y)

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

  Gray, James

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Green, Damian

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Greenway, John

  Sanders, Adrian

  Grieve, Dominic

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Shepherd, Richard

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Hammond, Philip

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

  Harris, Dr Evan

  Soames, Nicholas

  Harvey, Nick

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Hawkins, Nick

  Spring, Richard

  Hayes, John

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Heald, Oliver

  Steen, Anthony

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Streeter, Gary

  Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

  Stunell, Andrew

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Swayne, Desmond

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  Syms, Robert

  Horam, John

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strangford)

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Hunter, Andrew

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Townend, John

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Tredinnick, David

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Trend, Michael

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Tyler, Paul

  Keetch, Paul

  Tyrie, Andrew

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

  Walter, Robert

  Wardle, Charles

  Key, Robert

  Waterson, Nigel

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Webb, Steve

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Wells, Bowen

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  751

  Whittingdale, John

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Yeo, Tim

  Wilkinson, John

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Willetts, David

  Willis, Phil

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Wilshire, David

  Mr. Peter Luff and

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown.

  NOES

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Ainger, Nick

  Corston, Jean

  Alexander, Douglas

  Cousins, Jim

  Allen, Graham

  Cox, Tom

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Cranston, Ross

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Crausby, David

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Cummings, John

  Austin, John

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

  Bailey, Adrian

  Banks, Tony

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Barnes, Harry

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Barron, Kevin

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Bayley, Hugh

  Darvill, Keith

  Beard, Nigel

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Davidson, Ian

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Bell, Martin (Tatton)

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

  Dawson, Hilton

  Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

  Denham, John

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Dismore, Andrew

  Benton, Joe

  Dobbin, Jim

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Berry, Roger

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Best, Harold

  Doran, Frank

  Betts, Clive

  Dowd, Jim

  Blackman, Liz

  Drew, David

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Blunkett, Rt Hon David

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Borrow, David

  Edwards, Huw

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Efford, Clive

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Ennis, Jeff

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Etherington, Bill

  Brown, Rt Hon Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Fisher, Mark

  Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Browne, Desmond

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Loma

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Flint, Caroline

  Burgon, Colin

  Flynn, Paul

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Follett, Barbara

  Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Foulkes, George

  Caplin, Ivor

  Galloway, George

  Casale, Roger

  Gardiner, Barry

  Caton, Martin

  Gerrard, Neil

  Cawsey, Ian

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  Chaytor, David

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Clapham, Michael

  Godsrff, Roger

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Grocott, Bruce

  Clelland, David

  Grogan, John

  Clwyd, Ann

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Cohen, Harry

  Hanson, David

  Coleman, Iain

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  Colman, Tony

  Healey, John

  Corbett, Robin

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  752

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Martlew, Eric

  Hendrick, Mark

  Maxton, John

  Heppell, John

  Meale, Alan

  Hewitt, Ms Patricia

  Merron, Gillian

  Hill, Keith

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Hinchliffe, David

  Michie, Bill (Shefld Heeley)

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

  Hoey, Kate

  Miller, Andrew

  Hope, Phil

  Mitchell, Austin

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

  Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

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

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Hurst, Alan

  Morris, Rt Hon Sir John (Aberavon)

  Hutton, John

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Mudie, George

  Illsley, Eric

  Mullin, Chris

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Jamieson, David

  Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

  Jenkins, Brian

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Norris, Dan

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

  O'Hara, Eddie

  Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

  Olner, Bill

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Organ, Mrs Diana

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Pearson, Ian

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Pendry, Tom

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Perham, Ms Linda

  Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

  Pickthall, Colin

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Pike, Peter L

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Plaskitt, James

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Pollard, Kerry

  Kemp, Fraser

  Pond, Chris

  Khabra, Piara S

  Pope, Greg

  Kidney, David

  Pound, Stephen

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Laxton, Bob

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Lepper, David

  Purchase, Ken

  Levitt, Tom

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Radice, Rt Hon Giles

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Rammell, Bill

  Linton, Martin

  Raynsford, Nick

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

  Lock, David

  Love, Andrew

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Rogers, Allan

  McCabe, Steve

  Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Rooney, Terry

  McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Rowlands, Ted

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Roy, Frank

  McDonnell, John

  Ruddock, Joan

  McIsaac, Shona

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Salmond, Alex

  MacShane, Denis

  Salter, Martin

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  McWalter, Tony

  Savidge, Malcolm

  McWilliam, John

  Sawford, Phil

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Mallaber, Judy

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Short, Rt Hon Clare

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Singh, Marsha

  753

  Skinner, Dennis

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Vaz, Keith

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Soley, Clive

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Spellar, John

  Wareing, Robert N

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  White, Brian

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Stevenson, George

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Wills, Michael

  Winnick, David

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Wood, Mike

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Woolas, Phil

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Worthington, Tony

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Timms, Stephen

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Tipping, Paddy

  Todd, Mark

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Touhig, Don

  Mr. Mike Hall and

  Truswell, Paul

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Amendment proposed, at the end of the question, to add:
  'But humbly regret that the Gracious Speech fails to address the urgent need to protect the rights of the individual, reinforce communities and promote enterprise through increased liberalisation, decentralisation and deregulation; call for measures to reduce bureaucracy in schools and in the NHS, and increase professional recruitment and retention; call for a reforming agenda including the prevention of discrimination on grounds of age, disability, religion, sex and sexual orientation; urge the introduction of measures to increase the accountability of the police, promote crime prevention and victims' rights, rehabilitate offenders in the community, and establish a Royal Commission to examine the misuse of all drugs; regret the continued failure of the Government to provide for referendums on a fair voting system for the House of Commons and the European Single Currency; deplore the Government's continued neglect of rural occupations and communities; and regret that the timidity of the other measures in the Gracious Speech will do little to assist those who are worst off in society.'.—[Mr. Tyler.]
  Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 33 (Calling of amendments at end of debate), That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 46, Noes 322.

  Division No. 7]

  [10.15 pm

  AYES

  Allan, Richard

  Cotter, Brian

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Baker, Norman

  Fearn, Ronnie

  Ballard, Jackie

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Beggs, Roy

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Gidley, Sandra

  Bell, Martin (Tatton)

  Harris, Dr Evan

  Brake, Tom

  Harvey, Nick

  Brand, Dr Peter

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Burnett, John

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Burstow, Paul

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Cable, Dr Vincent

  Keetch, Paul

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

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

  Chidgey, David

  Kirkwood, Archy

  754

  Livsey, Richard

  Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strangford)

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Moore, Michael

  Tyler, Paul

  Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

  Webb, Steve

  Oaten, Mark

  Willis, Phil

  Rendel, David

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Salmond, Alex

  Mr. Andrew Stunell and

  Sanders, Adrian

  Sir Robert Smith.

  NOES

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Cohen, Harry

  Ainger, Nick

  Coleman, Iain

  Alexander, Douglas

  Colman, Tony

  Allen, Graham

  Corbett, Robin

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Corston, Jean

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Cousins, Jim

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Cox, Tom

  Austin, John

  Cranston, Ross

  Bailey, Adrian

  Crausby, David

  Banks, Tony

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Barnes, Harry

  Cummings, John

  Barron, Kevin

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Beard, Nigel

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Bell, Martin (Tatton)

  Darvill, Keith

  Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

  Davidson, Ian

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Benton, Joe

  Dawson, Hilton

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Berry, Roger

  Denham, John

  Best, Harold

  Dismore, Andrew

  Betts, Clive

  Dobbin, Jim

  Blackman, Liz

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Donaldson, Jeffrey

  Blunkett, Rt Hon David

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

  Doran, Frank

  Borrow, David

  Dowd, Jim

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Drew, David

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Brown, Rt Hon Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Edwards, Huw

  Efford, Clive

  Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Browne, Desmond

  Ennis, Jeff

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Etherington, Bill

  Burgon, Colin

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Fisher, Mark

  Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Flint, Caroline

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Flynn, Paul

  Caplin, Ivor

  Follett, Barbara

  Casale, Roger

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Caton, Martin

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Cawsey, Ian

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Foulkes, George

  Chaytor, David

  Galloway, George

  Clapham, Michael

  Gardiner, Barry

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Gerrard, Neil

  Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Godsiff, Roger

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Clelland, David

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  Clwyd, Ann

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  755

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Grocott, Bruce

  Mallaber, Judy

  Grogan, John

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Hanson, David

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Healey, John

  Martlew, Eric

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Maxton, John

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Meale, Alan

  Hendrick, Mark

  Merron, Gillian

  Heppell, John

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Hewitt, Ms Patricia

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Hill, Keith

  Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

  Hinchliffe, David

  Miller, Andrew

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  Mitchell, Austin

  Hoey, Kate

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Hope, Phil

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

  Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

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

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Morris, Rt Hon Sir John (Aberavon)

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Mudie, George

  Hurst, Alan

  Mullin, Chris

  Hutton, John

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

  Illsley, Eric

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Norris, Dan

  Jamieson, David

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Jenkins, Brian

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  O'Hara, Eddie

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Olner, Bill

  O'Neill, Martin

  Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

  Organ, Mrs Diana

  Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Pearson, Ian

  Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Pendry, Tom

  Perham, Ms Linda

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Pike, Peter L

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Plaskitt, James

  Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

  Pollard, Kerry

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Pond, Chris

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Pope, Greg

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Pound, Stephen

  Kemp, Fraser

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Khabra, Piara S

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Kidney, David

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Primarolo, Dawn

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Purchase, Ken

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Radice, Rt Hon Giles

  Laxton, Bob

  Rammell, Bill

  Lepper, David

  Raynsford, Nick

  Levitt, Tom

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Linton, Martin

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Rogers, Allan

  Lock, David

  Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

  Love, Andrew

  Rooney, Terry

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  McCabe, Steve

  Ross, William (E Lond'y)

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Rowlands, Ted

  McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)

  Roy, Frank

  Ruddock, Joan

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  McDonnell, John

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  McIsaac, Shona

  Salter, Martin

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Savidge, Malcolm

  MacShane, Denis

  Sawford, Phil

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Sedgemore, Brian

  McWalter, Tony

  Shaw, Jonathan

  756

  Sheerman, Barry

  Touhig, Don

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Truswell, Paul

  Short, Rt Hon Clare

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Singh, Marsha

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Vaz, Keith

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Wareing, Robert N

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  White, Brian

  Soley, Clive

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Spellar, John

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Stevenson, George

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Wills, Michael

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Winnick, David

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Wood, Mike

  Woolas, Phil

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Worthington, Tony

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Timms, Stephen

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Tipping, Paddy

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth and

  Todd, Mark

  Mr. Mike Hall.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Main question put:—
  The house divided: Ayes 317, Noes 183.

  Division No. 8]

  [10.28 pm

  AYES

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Brown, Rt Hon Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Ainger, Nick

  Alexander, Douglas

  Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

  Allen, Graham

  Browne, Desmond

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Burgon, Colin

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

  Austin, John

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Bailey, Adrian

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Banks, Tony

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Barnes, Harry

  Caplin, Ivor

  Barron, Kevin

  Casale, Roger

  Bayley, Hugh

  Caton, Martin

  Beard, Nigel

  Cawsey, Ian

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Chaytor, David

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Clapham, Michael

  Bell, Martin (Tatton)

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

  Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Benton, Joe

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Clelland, David

  Berry, Roger

  Clwyd, Ann

  Best, Harold

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Betts, Clive

  Cohen, Harry

  Blackman, Liz

  Coleman, Iain

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Colman, Tony

  Blunkett, Rt Hon David

  Corbett, Robin

  Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Borrow, David

  Corston, Jean

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Cousins, Jim

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Cox, Tom

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Cranston, Ross

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Crausby, David

  757

  Cryer, John (Homchunch)

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Cummings, John

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

  Hurst, Alan

  Hutton, John

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Illsley, Eric

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Darvill, Keith

  Jamieson, David

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Jenkins, Brian

  Davidson, Ian

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

  Dawson, Hilton

  Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Jones, Helen (Warnington N)

  Denham, John

  Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Dismore, Andrew

  Dobbin, Jim

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Doran, Frank

  Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

  Dowd, Jim

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Drew, David

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Kemp, Fraser

  Edwards, Huw

  Khabra, Piara S

  Efford, Clive

  Kidney, David

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Etherington, Bill

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Fisher, Mark

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

  Laxton, Bob

  Flint, Caroline

  Lepper, David

  Flynn, Paul

  Levitt, Tom

  Follett, Barbara

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Linton, Martin

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Foulkes, George

  Lock, David

  Galloway, George

  Love, Andrew

  Gardiner, Barry

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Gerrard, Neil

  McCabe, Steve

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Godsiff, Roger

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  McDonnell, John

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  McIsaac, Shona

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  MacShane, Denis

  Grocott, Bruce

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Grogan, John

  McWalter, Tony

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  McWilliam, John

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Hanson, David

  Mallaber, Judy

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Healey John

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Marshall, David (SheWeston)

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Hendrick, Mark

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Heppell, John

  Martlew, Eric

  Maxton, John

  Hewitt, Ms Patricia

  Meale, Alan

  Hill, Keith

  Merron, Gillian

  Hinchliffe, David

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  Michie, Bill (Shefld Heeley)

  Hoey, Kate

  Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

  Hope, Phil

  Miller, Andrew

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Mitchell, Austin

  Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

  758

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

  Singh, Marsha

  Skinner, Dennis

  Morris, Rt Hon Sir John (Aberavon)

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Mudie, George

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  Mullin, Chris

  Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Soley, Clive

  Norris, Dan

  Spellar, John

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Steinberg, Gerry

  O'Hara, Eddie

  Stevenson, George

  Olner, Bill

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  O'Neill, Martin

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Organ, Mrs Diana

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Pearson, Ian

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Pendry, Tom

  Perham, Ms Linda

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Pike, Peter L

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Plaskitt, James

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Pollard, Kerry

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Pond, Chris

  Timms, Stephen

  Pope, Greg

  Tipping, Paddy

  Pound, Stephen

  Todd, Mark

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Touhig, Don

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Truswell, Paul

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Primarolo Dawn

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Purchase, Ken

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Vaz, Keith

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Radice, Rt Hon Giles

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Rammell, Bill

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Raynsford, Nick

  Wareing, Robert N

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  White, Brian

  Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

  Rooney, Terry

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Roy, Frank

  Wills, Michael

  Ruddock, Joan

  Winnick, David

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  Wood, Mike

  Salter, Martin

  Woolas, Phil

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Worthington, Tony

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Sawford, Phil

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Sheerman, Barry

  Mr. Mike Hall and

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth.

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Allan, Richard

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

  Amess, David

  Brady, Graham

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Brake, Tom

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Brand, Dr Peter

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Baker, Norman

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Ballard, Jackie

  Burnett, John

  Beggs, Roy

  Burns, Simon

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Burstow, Paul

  Bell, Martin (Tatton)

  Butterfill, John

  Bercow, John

  Cable, Dr Vincent

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

  Blunt, Crispin

  Body, Sir Richard

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Boswell, Tim

  759

  Chidgey, David

  Livsey, Richard

  Chope, Christopher

  Loughton, Tim

  Clappison, James

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Collins, Tim

  Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

  Cotter, Brian

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Cran, James

  Madel, Sir David

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Malins, Humfrey

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Maples, John

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Mates, Michael

  Maude, Rt Hon Francis

  Day, Stephen

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Donaldson, Jeffrey

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Duncan, Alan

  Moore, Michael

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

  Evans, Nigel

  Moss, Malcolm

  Faber, David

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Fallon, Michael

  Norman, Archie

  Fearn, Ronnie

  Oaten, Mark

  Flight, Howard

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Ottaway, Richard

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Page, Richard

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Paice, James

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Pickles, Eric

  Gale, Roger

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Garnier, Edward

  Prior, David

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Randall, John

  Gibb, Nick

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Gidley, Sandra

  Rendel, David

  Gill, Christopher

  Robathan, Andrew

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Gray, James

  Ross, William (E Lond'y)

  Green, Damian

  Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

  Greenway, John

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Grieve, Dominic

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Salmond, Alex

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Sanders, Adrian

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Hammond, Philip

  Shepherd, Richard

  Harris, Dr Evan

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Harvey, Nick

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

  Hawkins, Nick

  Soames, Nicholas

  Hayes, John

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Heald, Oliver

  Spring, Richard

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

  Steen, Anthony

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  Streeter, Gary

  Horam, John

  Stunell, Andrew

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Swayne, Desmond

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Syms, Robert

  Hughes, Simon (Southward N)

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Hunter, Andrew

  Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strangford)

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Townend, John

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Tredinnick, David

  Keetch, Paul

  Trend, Michael

  Tyler, Paul

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

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Walter, Robert

  Key, Robert

  Waterson, Nigel

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Webb, Steve

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Wells, Bowen

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Whittingdale, John

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Lansley, Andrew

  Wilkinson, John

  Leigh, Edward

  Willetts, David

  Letwin, Oliver

  Willis, Phil

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Wilshire, David

  760

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Yeo, Tim

  Mr. Peter Luff and

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown.

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

  Sittings in Westminster Hall
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith,
  That, following the Order [20th November], Mr. Nicholas Winterton, Mr. John McWilliam, Mr. Barry Jones and Mr. Frank Cook be appointed to act as additional Deputy Speakers at sittings in Westminster Hall during this Session.
  Hon. Members: Object.

  Select Committees (Joint Meetings)
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith,
  That, for the current Session of Parliament, Standing Order No. 152 (Select committees related to government departments) be amended as follows:
  Line 37, before the word 'European' insert the words `Environmental Audit Committee or with the'.
  Hon. Members: Object.

  Business of the House
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith,
  That Private Members' Bills shall have precedence over Government business on 2nd and 9th February, 9th, 16th, 23rd and 30th March, 6th and 27th April, 11th and 18th May, 8th and 15th June and 20th July 2001.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith,
  That, at the sitting on Thursday 21st December, the Speaker shall not adjourn the House until he shall have notified the Royal Assent to Acts agreed upon by both Houses.
  Hon. Members: Object.

  ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND REGIONAL AFFAIRS
  Ordered,
  That Mr. James Gray be discharged from the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee and Sir Paul Beresford be added to the Committee.—[Mr. John Mc William, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

  SOCIAL SECURITY
  Ordered,
  That Mr. Edward Leigh be discharged from the Social Security Committee and Mrs. Ann Winterton be added to the Committee.—[Mr. John Mc William, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

  PETITIONS

    Minimum Incomes
    10.41 pm
    Dr. Howard Stoate: I beg leave to present a petition for the Zacchaeus 2000 Trust. We know that poverty causes ill health, but little evidence exists on the threshold at which that occurs. The petition therefore calls for the research into the minimum incomes needed to provide good health so as to inform Government policy-making. The petition has the support of 28 non-governmental organisations with a membership of more than 7.8 million people and 84 church leaders. It has 6,740 signatures, and those supporting it include the British Medical Association, the National Pensioners Convention, the Trades Union Congress, the UK Public Health Association, the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, the Church of Scotland and many others.
    The petition states:
    The petition of the Trustees of the Zacchaeus 2000 Trust and others
    Declares that the law as it stands does not require the minimum incomes needed by various categories of person to be taken into account when decisions are taken about taxation and other matters.
    The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Secretary of State for Social Security to introduce legislation which will provide the Government with information about the minimum incomes which will maintain good health, provide an adequate diet and other essential needs for pregnant women, their babies and toddlers, adults, families with children and pensioners and which will be taken into account when decisions are being made about the levels of local and national taxes, benefits, the minimum wage, working families tax credit, pensions and by the courts when determining the level of fines, the repayment of debts and all deductions from benefits.
    To lie upon the Table.

  Harefield Hospital
  10.43 pm
  Mr. John Wilkinson: I beg leave to present a petition on behalf of the Heart of Harefield campaign in support of Harefield hospital, signed by Councillor Richard Barnes of the Greater London Assembly, Professor Sir Magdi Yacoub and 20,000 additional signatories.
  The petition states:
  To the House of Commons
  The Humble Petition of Mr. Richard Barnes and others of like disposition sheweth that the high reputation for cardiothoracic surgery, transplantation, therapy and research at Harefield Hospital, Middlesex demonstrates the excellence of the hospital and its staff wherefore your petitioners pray your honourable House shall urge the Secretary of State for Health to keep the said hospital open and to develop its full potential.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Social Services (Peterborough)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Jamieson.]
  10.44 pm
  Sir Brian Mawhinney: I am grateful for the opportunity to draw the attention of the House for a few minutes to social services funding in Peterborough council.
  I start by making three points by way of background. First, as the Minister knows, there have been problems in the delivery of social services in Peterborough for some considerable time, going back to the old Cambridgeshire county council. Ricky Neave, whose tragic death some years ago shocked the area and, I think, the nation, was my constituent, and his death had serious consequences for social services policy.
  Secondly, Cambridgeshire social services, now under the direction of Liz Railton, and Peterborough social services, under the direction of Maureen Allan, have two fine directors who are not only addressing the problems that they inherited, but doing so positively and constructively.
  Thirdly, I do not approach the subject in a party political way. I have spent most time developing the case with officers of the council rather than with politicians, and I hope that we can proceed on that basis.
  As the Minister knows, there is pressure on the Peterborough social services budget, but that is not unique. The directors of the social services survey in September 2000 showed that the average projected mid-year overcommitment is about 2.1 per cent. and that the major area of overcommitment is attributable to children's services, and that that was true in just over half the authorities which responded to that survey.
  The survey further outlined that the pressures in children's services are believed to be, first, the escalating cost of placements for children who are looked after, and, secondly, the rising numbers of those children, at 4 per cent., and particularly those on care orders, at 8 per cent.
  Against that general background, the position in Peterborough is that, in this financial year, social services will spend about £30 million—22 per cent. above their standard spending assessment; but the real figures of concern are that spending on children's services will be 114 per cent. above SSA, and, consequently, spending on adult services will be 12 per cent. below SSA.
  As in the country, so in Peterborough: the largest pressures come from the number of children in the looked-after category and those on the child protection registers. That is why the experiences arising from the case of Ricky Neave were of some significance. The council has an action plan to drive down those numbers, and the plan has been approved by the Minister's social security inspectors.
  It is worth asking at this point why Peterborough has a particular problem. Only seven authorities in the country have a higher proportion of children in all three age bands, and of those seven, Peterborough has the highest number of children looked after except for Manchester. It has the highest number on the children's protection register and it has the lowest SSA for children per capita apart from Milton Keynes.

  763
  I have sent evidence to the Minister, which he has generously acknowledged, which shows that the problem in Peterborough is not the high budget but can be related in part to the low SSA, although I happily acknowledge that the two are interrelated.
  The high percentage of spend on children in Peterborough when compared with other unitary authorities and shire counties relates to the number of children in the looked-after category and on the child protection register. As the Minister knows, Peterborough has two and a half times as many looked-after children per 10,000 of the population, and nearly three times as many children on the child protection register as Cambridgeshire county council does. Peterborough wants to get those numbers down to the national average; it has set itself a target of achieving that in three years. It needs to do that because it is generally accepted—including by the Minister's inspectors—that the numbers are too high even if the historical reasons for them are understood.
  We all want children's services to be provided in the most appropriate circumstances. We are worried that, given the high numbers, what has happened historically may not be in the best interests of all the children. However, getting numbers in Peterborough down to the national average in three years will require a reduction of 15 per cent. per annum in those on the child protection register and a 14 per cent. reduction per annum in the number of looked-after children. The Minister has been in his job long enough—as I was in a previous Government—to understand that those figures constitute an enormous reduction to ask of any local authority that also has to provide services day in, day out.
  However, it is important to achieve that aim both for the children and because it represents a potential saving of approximately £2.5 million a year to the local authority. That money could be used not least for adult services. The Minister also knows that attempting to reduce numbers by 15 and 14 per cent. per annum is more difficult because the numbers in the two categories are increasing nationally. The trend cannot be established on a level playing field; it is an uphill task.
  I assure the Minister, with the authority of the director of social services and the chief executive of the local authority, that the council is determined to act. It has already commissioned a report from the district auditor and it has produced a phased recovery plan for reduced spend on children's services over the three years. I shall not bore the Minister with details—we do not have time to go into them tonight—save to say that the plan centres on three objectives: to improve partnerships, to target resources better and, importantly, to re-examine the criteria that bring children into the system in the first place.
  The district auditor's study shows that Peterborough's unit cost for looked-after children is below the average for comparable authorities by more than 15 per cent. I hope that the Minister will examine that figure; it is significant because it suggests that the problem stems from the historical increase in the number of children rather than gross inefficiency or maladministration in the department or the council.
  To achieve the goal that it has set itself and which is in line with what the Minister would wish, the council will need some short-term, transitional financial assistance.
  764
  The Minister will know that the council already plans to reduce spending on services. Indeed, it faces a certain amount of economic pressure, even in this financial year. The money being taken out of services is already significant, but the council faces having to take out even more if it is to address the problem. I know that he will want to bear in mind the improving picture for the delivery of social services in Peterborough, the new practices and the new personnel that Maureen Allan has put in place. All of us in Peterborough are grateful for the support, encouragement and constructive advice that his SSIs have given to the council during the various examinations. Everybody in Peterborough is pleased that the council's performance is improving and that that improvement has been recognised by the inspectors.
  If the council is to meet the objective of getting the figures for those two sets of children down to the national average, it will need to find, in addition to all its other spending, about £2.7 million over the next three years. As the Minister will understand, with spending on children at 114 per cent. above SSA and spending on adults 12 per cent. below, adult services are bearing the brunt of the diminution in services. He also knows that around the country the pressures on departments that provide social services for adults are increasing.
  In the next financial year, the council can look to a cash increase in its social services SSA of 1.1 per cent. The Minister will tell me, as do the official figures, that it will receive a 4.5 per cent. increase. I want him to know that we both understand that that is calculated on a reduced base because the Government have not yet made apparent what the care leaver's specific grant will be. A certain amount of crucial expenditure hangs on that grant.
  I do not want the Minister to give me a definitive response. Dare I say that I hope he will not do so? I hope, however, that he accepts the tone in which I have put the case and ask him to reflect on the facts and the evidence that have been put before him. The council needs £2.7 million over three years to get the numbers down in those two categories of children. It is determined to achieve that, if it can have the resources to do so. It has asked me to tell him that if he is able to find £1.3 million, tapering over three years, it will find the rest, although that will be extremely difficult. That brings me back to the care leaver's specific grant. The Government have not yet announced that grant. Should the Minister want to help, it would be a suitable vehicle for addressing the issue.
  I hope the Minister recognises that I have not made a plea for an increase in the SSA. I have not argued that the Government have treated Peterborough unfairly; nor have I made a party political case. A specific historical problem needs to be addressed for the benefit of the children and the services for adults. The council is determined to address the problem, but it will need short-term help. That is the case that I leave with him. I hope that he will go away, think about it and look favourably on Peterborough's claim when the care leaver's specific grant announcements are made.
  11 pm
  The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Hutton): I congratulate the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney) on securing a debate on the funding of social services

  765
  in Peterborough, which is covered by part of his constituency. I also associate myself with his remarks about Maureen Allan and Liz Railton, both of whom are doing an excellent job as directors of social services in Cambridgeshire and Peterborough.
  I am particularly grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his appreciation of the work of the social services inspectorate in Peterborough. It is doing a good job, and is working closely and, I think, successfully with the local authority—as it has for some time—in trying to address the complex and difficult issues to which the right hon. Gentleman so skilfully drew attention.
  Given the right hon. Gentleman's experience as a former social services Minister, I am sure that he will agree with me, at least in part, when I say that social services perform crucial functions. Those functions include child protection, on which the right hon. Gentleman dwelt; but social services also have a role in caring for elderly and disabled people. I hope the right hon. Gentleman would acknowledge that they also help us to confront some of the consequences of social exclusion and deprivation which, sadly, still scar the lives of many of our fellow citizens.
  Those tasks involve big responsibilities. I believe it is our job as parliamentarians to ensure that the services are properly resourced, and operate within a legal and policy framework that successfully promotes independence and opportunity and delivers the high standards that the public have a right to expect. I can say confidently that the Government have acted both to increase the overall resources available to social services departments, and to set out clearly the new framework within which social care should be delivered.
  I shall deal with both those issues in more detail later, as well as responding to the points that the right hon. Gentleman has raised—quite fairly—about the situation in Peterborough. Let me begin by dealing with his concern about social services funding. The right hon. Gentleman—again, very fairly and accurately—tried to explain the historical situation, and I shall not quibble with his description of events; but let me say, as he would expect me to, that the Government have given Peterborough council substantial extra resources in recent years.
  The overall level of resources provided for social services this year increased by 4.4 per cent., which is significantly more than the rate of inflation. That followed a larger increase of 6.1 per cent. in the previous year, 1999–2000. On a like-for-like basis, social services resources for Peterborough will, as the right hon. Gentleman said, rise by 4.5 per cent. next year. I shall explain the arithmetic in a moment.
  Those extra resources form part of a wider national picture, to which the right hon. Gentleman referred. The spending review announced earlier this year provides increases in resources for councils with social services responsibilities of, on average, 3.4 per cent. per annum in real terms over the next three years. That compares very favourably with an average real-terms growth in social services resources of just 0.1 per cent. per annum during the lifetime of the last Parliament.
  Next year—2001–02—the council's core resources for personal social services will increase by 4.5 per cent. Peterborough will also gain from considerable increases in new and on-going special grants. In particular, the children's grant—which we have yet to confirm—will
  766
  increase significantly next year. Peterborough's mental health grant will increase by 12 per cent. this year, and the carers' grant payable to the council will increase by 40 per cent. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman agrees that those are substantial increases, which will help the council to improve its services in important respects.
  The right hon. Gentleman was mainly concerned about children's services, but at the end of his speech he mentioned the implications of overspending on those services for adult services. That is a fair point; but he probably knows that the Secretary of State for Health announced on 4 December that £100 million of new resources—on top of the local government financial settlement—would be made available to social services next year. That money is being earmarked for improvements and expansion in social care and rehabilitation services for older people. Peterborough will benefit from an additional £261,000 as a result of that extra funding.
  The right hon. Gentleman expressed his concerns about the funding arrangements for implementing the provisions of the Children (Leaving Care) Act 2000, and his uncertainty over how much Peterborough council will receive. The Act, which seeks to improve the life chances of young people living in and leaving care, has been widely welcomed and enjoyed cross-party support in this House and in the other place.
  The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that we recently decided to implement those changes from October next year, rather than from April, which was our original intention. We were asked to defer implementation of the legislation by the Local Government Association, the Association of Directors of Social Services and by leading children's organisations. That will give local authorities and their partner agencies the opportunity to prepare properly for implementation.
  The provisions of the Act will be funded through a ring-fenced budget to ensure that those very vulnerable young people, who in the past have often had very little support, receive the services that they need and deserve. A ring-fenced budget was proposed in the consultation paper that preceded the publication of the new legislation. All the voluntary sector organisations that responded to the consultation and an overwhelming majority of local councils supported the proposal as the surest way of guaranteeing that appropriate resources reach that group of young people.
  The budget will consist of the money currently spent on services for such young people by local authorities and the Department of Social Security together with new resources from the children's grant. Implementing the Act in October rather than April has required changes to be made to the ring-fenced grant. It needs only to cover half the next financial year, not the whole of it. We intend to return to local councils through their standard spending assessments half the funds which were to be transferred into that new ring-fenced grant.
  I should make it clear to the right hon. Gentleman that those resources will still be available to support services for these young people. They are not disappearing into some black corner of local government finance, although there are plenty of those. This change has caused some delay in announcing local councils' share of the children's grant, and I regret any uncertainty that that has caused local councils such as Peterborough. I can tell the right

  767
  hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mrs. Brinton), who is with us, that the Government expect to announce revised SSAs and grant figures for local authorities in the very near future.
  I am obviously aware that Peterborough is experiencing budget pressures in its children's services. The right hon. Gentleman explained the reasons for those pressures very clearly. In 1998–99, the council inherited a spending figure that was 19 per cent. above the standard spending assessment for children's services. In 1999–2000, that had risen to 21 per cent., and the projection for next year is that it will be about 22 per cent.
  The problems faced by the council are not entirely due to its financial inheritance. The need to improve financial management, service planning and decision making in children's services also play a part. The council has faced a rising cost from children's placements—the right hon. Gentleman referred to that—that have increasingly been made outside Peterborough council's own area. I understand that in the near future it will carry out an urgent best value review of that area of its work, which will consider the whole range of children's placements, and that it intends to develop professional fostering placements, particularly for difficult to place children. That should enable the council to reduce the use of placements away from Peterborough.
  The council has also proposed a budget recovery plan that combines the reduction in the number of out-of-city placements with improved care planning to reduce the overall number of looked-after children, particularly children who are living in their own homes. From a peak figure of 398 looked-after children in May 2000, the current figure has reduced by 40, which is quite a substantial decrease in a relatively short period—almost 10 per cent.
  I should like to reassure the right hon. Gentleman that Peterborough is not treated unfairly by the funding system. I know that he was at pains to say that that was not the essence of his argument, but it is worth pointing out that the SSA system is designed to treat all councils equitably. When calculating SSAs, the Government take account of the population, social structure and other characteristics of an authority. The methodology is applied uniformly to all authorities using data that have been compiled consistently across all authorities.
  I should also like to mention that the special and specific grants we make available to local councils are allocated on the basis of formulae—often the SSAs—and treat each local council in a similar fashion. The right hon. Gentleman may also like to know that Peterborough has been a net beneficiary of all the major changes to the SSA formula that we have introduced since 1997.
  I think that it would be wrong for me to depart from this approach by promising to make a special payment to one council, which could, in the final resort, only be made at the expense of other authorities. I am not sure that I can hold out any prospect for the right hon. Gentleman that I will be able to agree to his suggestion that additional funding of £1.3 million over three years should be made available to the city council.
  That is not to imply that the Government are content with how the SSA system works. Our Green Paper "Modernising Local Government Finance" acknowledges
  768
  serious weaknesses with the SSA system, and proposes ways to improve the grant distribution. The consultation period on those proposals has now ended, and the Government are considering the best way forward.
  On the quality of children's services, the right hon. Gentleman is well aware that Peterborough has been the subject of special measures since 1997. That is the result of an adverse SSI inspection of child protection services in Cambridgeshire following the death of Ricky Neave, to whom he referred. After the local government reorganisation in 1998, Peterborough was required to implement the inherited action plan from Cambridgeshire.
  Follow-up inspections in March and October confirm that Peterborough social services is now delivering improved protection for children. Quality and consistency are still problematic, but the council is showing substantial progress, and I want to congratulate all those who are working so hard to improve children's services in Peterborough. It does, however, need to improve its quality, personnel and financial management strategies to continue to get the best out of all the resources available to it. The council is currently being reviewed jointly by the SSI and the Audit Commission to determine how well the council serves local people in its social services. The report will be available in spring next year and will have more to say on those issues. When the report is received, the status of special measures will need to be reviewed.
  The right hon. Gentleman may be aware that on 10 October I announced the formation of a new adoption and permanence taskforce to help councils achieve a step change in the performance of their adoption services. One of the first visits of the taskforce—last week—was to Peterborough to help the social services authority draw up measures to improve its performance on adoption.
  When I met the right hon. Gentleman about a year ago to discuss the situation in Peterborough, he raised particular concerns about recruitment to vacant posts in Peterborough's children's services. Peterborough employs a high number of agency staff, who are very high cost, because of its difficulty in recruiting and retaining permanent staff. That is one of the factors to which the right hon. Gentleman was right to draw attention. He is also right—I am grateful to him for saying this—that my social services inspectors have worked closely with Peterborough on new approaches to recruitment, which have been successful. A new head of service, a new deputy head of service, a newlooked-after children's manager and an intake and assessment manager have been appointed recently. That will all add to the management strength of Peterborough city council.
  While those new appointments will strengthen the management arrangements for children's services, work still needs to continue to get in place the required level of social workers and senior practitioners. There is currently a 24 per cent. vacancy level in respect of those posts, and the right. hon. Gentleman and I are concerned about that.
  The Department is in continuing discussion with the Local Government Association and others about how we can help local government and other organisations to recruit and retain staff in this important area of our welfare services. We are also making an extra £41 million available to councils in order to provide financial support for training social workers from next year. I hope that that will make a difference to the general difficulties that are experienced by some authorities.

  769
  The right hon. Gentleman's concerns have been largely about children's social services in Peterborough, and I understand that. It is worth recording, however, that in relation to adult services, Peterborough has no delayed discharges through funding problems, nor any due to home care capacity. Its best value review of home care has led to more of that service being commissioned from the independent sector. Independent sector home care hours have increased by over 2,800 per week, which has brought savings of £390,000 to the local council, which have been deployed into more intensive care packages supporting people at home.
  The council has completed a best value review of residential care leading to active consideration about the future of a number of their own directly provided homes. That is linked to proposals to make more use of sheltered accommodation with an anticipated saving next year of around £110,000.
  I am pleased to have had the opportunity to outline our improved financial support to Peterborough and to acknowledge the council's positive handling of its problems in recruitment matters, and its strategies to get a better grip of its children's services budget. Peterborough should draw lessons from the improved use of resources in adult services where its early best value review work has had a positive impact. Applying best value strategies to its children's services will be important to its overall efficiency and quality. We shall continue to scrutinise the quality of the council's services through the work of the SSI and the Audit Commission.
  The motion having been made after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at fourteen minutes past Eleven o'clock.

  Deferred Divisions
  FISHERIES: TOTAL ALLOWABLE CATCHES AND QUOTAS 2001
  That this House takes note of the Unnumbered Explanatory Memorandum of 28th November relating to the fixing of fishing opportunities for 2001 and certain conditions under which they may be fished; recognises that a number of fish stocks have fallen to particularly low levels; and supports the Government's intention to sustain stocks for the future, and assist recovery of those stocks which are in danger of collapse, while negotiating the best possible fishing opportunities for UK fishermen.
  The House divided: Ayes 437, Noes 86.

  Division No. 2]

  AYES

  Ainger, Nick

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Burden, Richard

  Alexander, Douglas

  Burgon, Colin

  Allan, Richard

  Burnett, John

  Allen, Graham

  Burstow, Paul

  Amess, David

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Butterfill, John

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Caplin, Ivor

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Casale, Roger

  Austin, John

  Caton, Martin

  Bailey, Adrian

  Cawsey, Ian

  Baker, Norman

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Ballard, Jackie

  Banks, Tony

  Chaytor, David

  Barnes, Harry

  Chidgey, David

  Barron, Kevin

  Church, Ms Judith

  Bayley, Hugh

  Clapham, Michael

  Beard, Nigel

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Bell, Martin (Tatton)

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

  Clelland, David

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Benton, Joe

  Clwyd, Ann

  Bercow, John

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Coleman, Iain

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Colman, Tony

  Berry, Roger

  Cooper, Yvette

  Best, Harold

  Corbett, Robin

  Betts, Clive

  Corston, Jean

  Blackman, Liz

  Cotter, Brian

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Cousins, Jim

  Blunkett, Rt Hon David

  Cran, James

  Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

  Cranston, Ross

  Borrow, David

  Crausby, David

  Boswell, Tim

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

  Cummings, John

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Brady, Graham

  Darvill, Keith

  Brake, Tom

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Brand, Dr Peter

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Breed, Colin

  Davidson, Ian

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llnelli)

  Brown, Rt Hon Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

  Day, Stephen

  Browne, Desmond

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  771

  Denham, John

  Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

  Dismore, Andrew

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Dobbin, Jim

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Hughes, Ms Bevertey (Stretford)

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Doran, Frank

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Hurst, Alan

  Dowd, Jim

  Hutton, John

  Drew, David

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Illsley, Eric

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Jamieson, David

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Edwards, Huw

  Jenkins, Brian

  Efford, Clive

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Ennis, Jeff

  Etherington, Bill

  Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Evans, Nigel

  Faber, David

  Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

  Fabricant, Michael

  Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

  Fearn, Ronnie

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Fisher, Mark

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Loma

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Flint, Caroline

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Flynn, Paul

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Follett, Barbara

  Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Keetch, Paul

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Kemp, Fraser

  Gale, Roger

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Gardiner, Barry

  Khabra, Piara S

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Kidney, David

  Gerrard, Neil

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Gidley, Sandra

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Kingham, Ms Tess

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Gray, James

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Green, Damian

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Greenway, John

  Lammy, David

  Grieve, Dominic

  Laxton, Bob

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Leigh, Edward

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Lepper, David

  Grocott, Bruce

  Levitt, Tom

  Grogan, John

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Hain, Peter

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Linton, Martin

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Livsey, Richard

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Hanson, David

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  Lock, David

  Harvey, Nick

  Love, Andrew

  Hawkins, Nick

  Luff, Peter

  Healey, John

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  McCabe, Steve

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Hendrick, Mark

  McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)

  Heppell, John

  Hewitt, Ms Patricia

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Hinchliffe, David

  McDonnell, John

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  McFall, John

  Hoey, Kate

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  McIsaac, Shona

  Hope, Phil

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Horam, John

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  772

  McNulty, Tony

  Rendel, David

  MacShane, Denis

  Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  McWalter, Tony

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  McWilliam, John

  Rogers, Allan

  Madel, Sir David

  Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Rooney, Terry

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Mallaber, Judy

  Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

  Maples, John

  Rowlands, Ted

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Ruddock, Joan

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Salmond, Alex

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Salter, Martin

  Martlew, Eric

  Sanders, Adrian

  Mates, Michael

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Savidge, Malcolm

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Sawford, Phil

  Meale, Alan

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Merron, Gillian

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Michie, Bill (Shefld Heeley)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

  Short, Rt Hon Clare

  Miller, Andrew

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Mitchell, Austin

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Singh, Marsha

  Moore, Michael

  Skinner, Dennis

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

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

  Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Mudie, George

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

  Mullin, Chris

  Soley, Clive

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

  Spellar, John

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Norman, Archie

  Spring, Richard

  Norris, Dan

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Steinberg, Gerry

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Stevenson, George

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Olner, Bill

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  O'Neill, Martin

  Straw, Rt Hon Jack

  Organ, Mrs Diana

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Ottaway, Richard

  Stunell, Andrew

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Pearson, Ian

  Swayne, Desmond

  Pendry, Tom

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Pickthall, Colin

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Pike, Peter L

  Plaskitt, James

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Pollard, Kerry

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Pond, Chris

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Pope, Greg

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Pound, Stephen

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Timms, Stephen

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Tipping, Paddy

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Todd, Mark

  Prior, David

  Touhig, Don

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Townend, John

  Purchase, Ken

  Trend, Michael

  Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

  Truswell, Paul

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Radice, Rt Hon Giles

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Rammell, Bill

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Randall, John

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Raynsford, Nick

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Tyler, Paul

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  Tynan, Bill

  773

  Vaz, Keith

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Willis, Phil

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Winnick, David

  Walter, Robert

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Watts, David

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Webb, Steve

  Wood, Mike

  Wells, Bowen

  Woodward, Shaun

  White, Brian

  Woolas, Phil

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Worthington, Tony

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Whittingdale, John

  Yeo, Tim

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Willetts, David

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Amess, David

  Leigh, Edward

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Luff, Peter

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Beggs, Roy

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Bercow, John

  Madel, Sir David

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Boswell, Tim

  Maples, John

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

  Mates, Michael

  Brady, Graham

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Norman, Archie

  Butterfill, John

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbuty)

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Ottaway, Richard

  Prior, David

  Chope, Christopher

  Randall, John

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Cran, James

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Ross, William (E Lond'y)

  Day, Stephen

  Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

  Donaldson, Jeffrey

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Shepherd, Richard

  Evans, Nigel

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Faber, David

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Fabricant, Michael

  Swayne, Desmond

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Gale, Roger

  Thompson, William

  Gill, Christopher

  Townend, John

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Trend, Michael

  Gray, James

  Walter, Robert

  Green, Damian

  Wells, Bowen

  Greenway, John

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  Grieve, Dominic

  Whittingdale, John

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Willetts, David

  Hawkins, Nick

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Horam, John

  Yeo, Tim

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Jenkin, Bemard

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Question accordingly agreed to.

  Deferred Divisions

    ADJOURNMENT (CHRISTMAS)
    That this house, at its rising on Thursday 21st December, do till Monday 8th January 2001.
    The house divided: Ayes 478, Noes 8.

    Division No. 3]

    AYES

    Ainger, Nick

    Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

    Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

    Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

    Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

    Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

    Alexander, Douglas

    Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

    Allan, Richard

    Campbell-Savours, Dale

    Allen, Graham

    Caplin, Ivor

    Amess, David

    Casale, Roger

    Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

    Caton, Martin

    Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

    Cawsey, Ian

    Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

    Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

    Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

    Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

    Chaytor, David

    Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

    Chidgey, David

    Atkins, Charlotte

    Church, Ms Judith

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Clapham, Michael

    Austin, John

    Clappison, James

    Bailey, Adrian

    Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

    Baker, Norman

    Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

    Baldry, Tony

    Ballard, Jackie

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

    Banks, Tony

    Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

    Barnes, Harry

    Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

    Barron, Kevin

    Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

    Bayley, Hugh

    Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

    Beard, Nigel

    Clelland, David

    Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

    Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

    Begg, Miss Anne

    Clwyd, Ann

    Beggs, Roy

    Coffey, Ms Ann

    Beith, Rt Hon A J

    Coleman, Iain

    Bell, Martin (Tatton)

    Collins, Tim

    Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

    Colman, Tony

    Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

    Cooper, Yvette

    Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

    Corbett, Robin

    Bennett, Andrew F

    Corston, Jean

    Benton, Joe

    Cotter, Brian

    Bercow, John

    Cousins, Jim

    Beresford, Sir Paul

    Cran, James

    Bermingham, Gerald

    Cranston, Ross

    Berry, Roger

    Crausby, David

    Best, Harold

    Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

    Betts, Clive

    Cummings, John

    Blackman, Liz

    Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

    Blears, Ms Hazel

    Curry, Rt Hon David

    Blunkett, Rt Hon David

    Dalyell, Tam

    Blunt, Crispin

    Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

    Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

    Darvill, Keith

    Borrow, David

    Davey, Edward (Kingston)

    Boswell, Tim

    Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

    Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

    Davidson, Ian

    Bradley, Keith (Withington)

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

    Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

    Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

    Bradshaw, Ben

    Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

    Brady, Graham

    Day, Stephen

    Brake, Tom

    Dean, Mrs Janet

    Brand, Dr Peter

    Denham, John

    Breed, Colin

    Dismore, Andrew

    Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

    Dobbin, Jim

    Brown, Rt Hon Gordon (Dunfermline E)

    Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

    Donaldson, Jeffrey

    Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

    Donohoe, Brian H

    Browne, Desmond

    Doran, Frank

    Browning, Mrs Angela

    Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

    Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

    Dowd, Jim

    Buck, Ms Karen

    Drew, David

    Burden, Richard

    Drown, Ms Julia

    Burgon, Colin

    Duncan Smith, Iain

    Burnett, John

    Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

    Burns, Simon

    Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

    Burstow, Paul

    Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

    Butler, Mrs Christine

    Edwards, Huw

    Butterfill, John

    Efford, Clive

    775

    Ellman, Mrs Louise

    Hutton, John

    Ennis, Jeff

    Iddon, Dr Brian

    Etherington, Bill

    Illsley, Eric

    Evans, Nigel

    Jack, Rt Hon Michael

    Faber, David

    Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

    Fabricant, Michael

    Jamieson, David

    Fearn, Ronnie

    Jenkin, Bernard

    Field, Rt Hon Frank

    Jenkins, Brian

    Fisher, Mark

    Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

    Fitzpatrick, Jim

    Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

    Fitzsimons, Mrs Loma

    Flint, Caroline

    Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Flynn, Paul

    Follett, Barbara

    Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

    Forth, Rt Hon Eric

    Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

    Foster, Rt Hon Derek

    Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

    Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

    Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

    Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

    Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

    Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

    Fox, Dr Liam

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

    Gale, Roger

    Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

    Gardiner, Barry

    Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

    Garnier, Edward

    Keeble, Ms Sally

    George, Andrew (St Ives)

    Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

    Gerrard, Neil

    Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

    Gibb, Nick

    Keetch, Paul

    Gibson, Dr Ian

    Kemp, Fraser

    Gidley, Sandra

    Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

    Gill, Christopher

    Key, Robert

    Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

    Khabra, Piara S

    Gilroy, Mrs Linda

    Kidney, David

    Godman, Dr Norman A

    Kilfoyle, Peter

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

    Gordon, Mrs Eileen

    King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

    King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

    Gray, James

    Kingham, Ms Tess

    Green, Damian

    Kirkbride, Miss Julie

    Greenway, John

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Grieve, Dominic

    Kumar, Dr Ashok

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    Ladyman, Dr Stephen

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Laing, Mrs Eleanor

    Grocott, Bruce

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Grogan, John

    Lammy, David

    Hague, Rt Hon William

    Lansley, Andrew

    Hain, Peter

    Laxton, Bob

    Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

    Leigh, Edward

    Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

    Lepper, David

    Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

    Letwin, Oliver

    Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

    Levitt, Tom

    Hanson, David

    Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

    Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

    Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

    Hawkins, Nick

    Lidington, David

    Heald, Oliver

    Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

    Healey, John

    Linton, Martin

    Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

    Livsey, Richard

    Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

    Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

    Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

    Lock, David

    Hendrick, Mark

    Loughton, Tim

    Heppell, John

    Love, Andrew

    Hewitt, Ms Patricia

    Luff, Peter

    Hinchliffe, David

    Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

    Hodge, Ms Margaret

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Hoey, Kate

    McCabe, Steve

    Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

    McCafferty, Ms Chris

    Hope, Phil

    McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)

    Hopkins, Kelvin

    Horam, John

    McDonagh, Siobhain

    Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

    McDonnell, John

    Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

    McFall, John

    Howells, Dr Kim

    McIntosh, Miss Anne

    Hoyle, Lindsay

    McIsaac, Shona

    Hughes, Ms Beveriey (Stretford)

    MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

    McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

    Humble, Mrs Joan

    Mackinlay, Andrew

    Hurst, Alan

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    776

    McNulty, Tony

    Redwood, Rt Hon John

    MacShane, Denis

    Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

    Mactaggart, Fiona

    Rendel, David

    McWalter, Tony

    Robathan, Andrew

    McWilliam, John

    Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

    Madel, Sir David

    Mahon, Mrs Alice

    Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

    Major, Rt Hon John

    Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

    Mallaber, Judy

    Rogers, Allan

    Maples, John

    Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

    Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

    Rooney, Terry

    Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    Marshall, David (Shettleston)

    Ross, William (E Lond'y)

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

    Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

    Marshall-Andrews, Robert

    Rowlands, Ted

    Martlew, Eric

    Ruddock, Joan

    Mates, Michael

    Russell, Bob (Colchester)

    Maude, Rt Hon Francis

    Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

    Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

    St Aubyn, Nick

    May, Mrs Theresa

    Salter, Martin

    Meale, Alan

    Sanders, Adrian

    Merron, Gillian

    Sarwar, Mohammad

    Michael, Rt Hon Alun

    Savidge, Malcolm

    Michie, Bill (Shefld Heeley)

    Sawford, Phil

    Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

    Sayeed, Jonathan

    Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Miller, Andrew

    Shaw, Jonathan

    Mitchell, Austin

    Sheerman, Barry

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

    Moore, Michael

    Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

    Moran, Ms Margaret

    Shepherd, Richard

    Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

    Short, Rt Hon Clare

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

    Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

    Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

    Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie

    Singh, Marsha

    Mudie, George

    Skinner, Dennis

    Mullin, Chris

    Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

    Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

    Smith, Angela (Basildon)

    Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

    Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

    Naysmith, Dr Doug

    Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Norman, Archie

    Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

    Norris, Dan

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

    O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

    Soley, Clive

    O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

    Southworth, Ms Helen

    O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

    Spellar, John

    Olner, Bill

    Spelman, Mrs Caroline

    O'Neill, Martin

    Spicer, Sir Michael

    Organ, Mrs Diana

    Spring, Richard

    Ottaway, Richard

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    Page, Richard

    Starkey, Dr Phyllis

    Palmer, Dr Nick

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Pearson, Ian

    Stevenson, George

    Pendry, Tom

    Stoate, Dr Howard

    Pickles, Eric

    Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

    Pickthall, Colin

    Straw, Rt Hon Jack

    Pike, Peter L

    Streeter, Gary

    Plaskitt, James

    Stuart, Ms Gisela

    Pollard, Kerry

    Stunell, Andrew

    Pond, Chris

    Sutcliffe, Gerry

    Pope, Greg

    Swayne, Desmond

    Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

    Syms, Robert

    Pound, Stephen

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Powell, Sir Raymond

    Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

    Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

    Prescott, Rt Hon John

    Taylor, Ms Dan (Stockton S)

    Primarolo, Dawn

    Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

    Prior, David

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Prosser, Gwyn

    Taylor, Sir Teddy

    Purchase, Ken

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

    Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

    Quinn, Lawrie

    Thompson, William

    Radice, Rt Hon Giles

    Timms, Stephen

    Rammell, Bill

    Tipping, Paddy

    Randall, John

    Todd, Mark

    Raynsford, Nick

    Touhig, Don

    777

    Townend, John

    Wicks, MaIcolm

    Trend, Michael

    Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

    Truswell, Paul

    Willetts, David

    Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

    Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

    Turner, Neil (Wigan)

    Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

    Twigg, Derek (Halton)

    Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

    Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

    Willis, Phil

    Tyler, Paul

    Winnick, David

    Tynan, Bill

    Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

    Tyrie, Andrew

    Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

    Vaz, Keith

    Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

    Vis, Dr Rudi

    Wood, Mike

    Walley, Ms Joan

    Woodward, Shaun

    Walter, Robert

    Woolas, Phil

    Ward, Ms Claire

    Worthington, Tony

    Waterson, Nigel

    Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

    Watts, David

    Wright Tony (Cannock)

    Webb, Steve

    Yeo, Tim

    Wells, Bowen

    Young, Rt Hon Sir George

    White, Brian

    Whitehead, Dr Alan

    Whitney, Sir Raymond

    Whittingdale, John

    NOES

    Chope, Christopher

    Salmond, Alex

    Harvey, Nick

    Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

    Llwyd, Elfyn

    MacIean, Rt Hon David

    Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

    Ross, William (E Lond'y)

    Question accordingly agreed to.

    SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE
    That the House shall not sit on the following Fridays:
    12th and 19th January, 16th February, 2nd March, 4th May, 22nd and 29th June, 6th and 13th July and 19th October 2001.
    The House divided: Ayes 478, Noes 5.

    Division No. 4]

    AYES

    Ainger, Nick

    Bell, Martin (Tatton)

    Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

    Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

    Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

    Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

    Alexander, Douglas

    Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

    Allan, Richard

    Bennett, Andrew F

    Allen, Graham

    Benton, Joe

    Amess, David

    Bercow, John

    Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

    Beresford, Sir Paul

    Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

    Bermingham, Gerald

    Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

    Berry, Roger

    Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

    Best, Harold

    Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

    Betts Clive

    Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

    Blackman, Liz

    Atkins, Charlotte

    Blears, Ms Hazel

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Blunkett Rt Hon David

    Austin, John

    Blunt, Crispin

    Bailey, Adrian

    Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

    Baker, Norman

    Borrow, David

    Baldry, Tony

    Boswell, Tim

    Ballard, Jackie

    Banks, Tony

    Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

    Barnes, Harry

    Bradley, Keith (Withington)

    Barron, Kevin

    Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

    Bayley, Hugh

    Bradshaw, Ben

    Beard, Nigel

    Brady, Graham

    Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

    Brake, Tom

    Begg, Miss Anne

    Brand, Dr Peter

    Beggs, Roy

    Breed, Colin

    Beith, Rt Hon A J

    Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

    778

    Brown, Rt Hon Gordon (Dunfermline E)

    Dowd, Jim

    Drew, David

    Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

    Drown, Ms Julia

    Browne, Desmond

    Duncan Smith, Iain

    Browning, Mrs Angela

    Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

    Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

    Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

    Buck, Ms Karen

    Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

    Burden, Richard

    Edwards, Huw

    Burgon, Colin

    Efford, Clive

    Burnett, John

    Ellman, Mrs Louise

    Burns, Simon

    Ennis, Jeff

    Burstow, Paul

    Etherington, Bill

    Butler, Mrs Christine

    Evans, Nigel

    Butterfill, John

    Faber, David

    Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

    Fabricant, Michael

    Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

    Fearn, Ronnie

    Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

    Fieid, Rt Hon Frank

    Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

    Fisher, Mark

    Campbell-Savours, Dale

    Fitzpatrick, Jim

    Caplin, Ivor

    Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

    Casale, Roger

    Flint, Caroline

    Caton, Martin

    Flynn, Paul

    Cawsey, Ian

    Follett, Barbara

    Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

    Foster, Rt Hon Derek

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    Chaytor, David

    Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

    Chidgey, David

    Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

    Church, Ms Judith

    Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

    Clapham, Michael

    Fox, Dr Liam

    Clappison, James

    Gale, Roger

    Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

    Gardiner, Barry

    Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

    Garnier, Edward

    George, Andrew (St Ives)

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

    Gerrard, Neil

    Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

    Gibb, Nick

    Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

    Gibson, Dr Ian

    Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

    Gidley, Sandra

    Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

    Gill, Christopher

    Clelland, David

    Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

    Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

    Gilroy, Mrs Linda

    Clwyd, Ann

    Godman, Dr Norman A

    Coffey, Ms Ann

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    Coleman, Iain

    Gordon, Mrs Eileen

    Collins, Tim

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

    Colman, Tony

    Gray, James

    Cooper, Yvette

    Green, Damian

    Corbett, Robin

    Greenway, John

    Corston, Jean

    Grieve, Dominic

    Cotter, Brian

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    Cousins, Jim

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Cran, James

    Grocott, Bruce

    Cranston, Ross

    Grogan, John

    Crausby, David

    Hague, Rt Hon William

    Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

    Hain, Peter

    Cummings, John

    Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

    Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

    Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

    Curry, Rt Hon David

    Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

    Dalyell, Tam

    Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

    Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

    Hanson, David

    Darvill, Keith

    Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

    Davey, Edward (Kingston)

    Harvey, Nick

    Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

    Hawkins, Nick

    Davidson, Ian

    Heald, Oliver

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

    Healey, John

    Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

    Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

    Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

    Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

    Day, Stephen

    Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

    Dean, Mrs Janet

    Hendrick, Mark

    Denham, John

    Heppell, John

    Dismore, Andrew

    Hewitt, Ms Patricia

    Dobbin, Jim

    Hinchliffe, David

    Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

    Hodge, Ms Margaret

    Donaldson, Jeffrey

    Hoey, Kate

    Donohoe, Brian H

    Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

    Doran, Frank

    Hope, Phil

    Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

    Hopkins, Kelvin

    779

    Horam, John

    McDonagh, Siobhain

    Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

    McDonnell, John

    Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

    McFall, John

    Howells, Dr Kim

    McIntosh, Miss Anne

    Hoyle, Lindsay

    McIsaac, Shona

    Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

    MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

    McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

    Humble, Mrs Joan

    Mackinlay, Andrew

    Hurst, Alan

    MacIean, Rt Hon David

    Hutton, John

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Iddon, Dr Brian

    McNulty, Tony

    Illsley, Eric

    MacShane, Denis

    Jack, Rt Hon Michael

    Mactaggart, Fiona

    Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

    McWalter, Tony

    Jamieson, David

    McWilliam, John

    Jenkin, Bernard

    Madel, Sir David

    Jenkins, Brian

    Mahon, Mrs Alice

    Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

    Major, Rt Hon John

    Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

    Mallaber, Judy

    Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Maples, John

    Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

    Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

    Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

    Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

    Marshall, David (Shettleston)

    Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

    Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

    Marshall-Andrews, Robert

    Martlew, Eric

    Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

    Mates, Michael

    Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

    Maude, Rt Hon Francis

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

    Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

    Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

    May, Mrs Theresa

    Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

    Meale, Alan

    Keeble, Ms Sally

    Merron, Gillian

    Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

    Michael, Rt Hon Alun

    Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

    Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

    Keetch, Paul

    Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

    Kemp, Fraser

    Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

    Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

    Miller, Andrew

    Key, Robert

    Mitchell, Austin

    Khabra, Piara S

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    Kidney, David

    Moore, Michael

    Kilfoyle, Peter

    Moran, Ms Margaret

    King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

    Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

    King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

    Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

    King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

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

    Kingham, Ms Tess

    Kirkbride, Miss Julie

    Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Mudie, George

    Kumar, Dr Ashok

    Mullin, Chris

    Ladyman, Dr Stephen

    Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

    Laing, Mrs Eleanor

    Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Naysmith, Dr Doug

    Lammy, David

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Lansley, Andrew

    Norman, Archie

    Laxton, Bob

    Norris, Dan

    Leigh, Edward

    O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

    Lepper, David

    O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

    Letwin, Oliver

    O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

    Levitt, Tom

    Olner, Bill

    Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

    O'Neill, Martin

    Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

    Lidington, David

    Organ, Mrs Diana

    Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

    Ottaway, Richard

    Linton, Martin

    Page, Richard

    Livsey, Richard

    Palmer, Dr Nick

    Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

    Pearson, Ian

    Lock, David

    Pendry, Tom

    Loughton, Tim

    Pickles, Eric

    Love, Andrew

    Pickthall, Colin

    Luff, Peter

    Pike, Peter L

    Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

    Plaskitt, James

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Pollard, Kerry

    McCabe, Steve

    Pond, Chris

    McCafferty, Ms Chris

    Pope, Greg

    McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)

    Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

    Pound, Stephen

    780

    Powell, Sir Raymond

    Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

    Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

    Straw, Rt Hon Jack

    Prescott, Rt Hon John

    Streeter, Gary

    Primarolo, Dawn

    Stuart, Ms Gisela

    Prior, David

    Stunell, Andrew

    Prosser, Gwyn

    Sutcliffe, Gerry

    Purchase, Ken

    Swayne, Desmond

    Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

    Syms, Robert

    Quinn, Lawrie

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Radice, Rt Hon Giles

    Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

    Rammell, Bill

    Randall, John

    Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

    Raynsford, Nick

    Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

    Redwood, Rt Hon John

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

    Taylor, Sir Teddy

    Rendel, David

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Robathan, Andrew

    Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

    Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

    Timms, Stephen

    Tipping, Paddy

    Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

    Todd, Mark

    Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

    Touhig, Don

    Rogers, Allan

    Townend, John

    Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

    Trend, Michael

    Rooney, Terry

    Truswell, Paul

    Ross, Emie (Dundee W)

    Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

    Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

    Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

    Rowlands, Ted

    Turner, Neil (Wigan)

    Ruddock, Joan

    Twigg, Derek (Halton)

    Russell, Bob (Colchester)

    Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

    Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

    Tyler, Paul

    St Aubyn, Nick

    Tynan, Bill

    Salmond, Alex

    Tyrie, Andrew

    Salter, Martin

    Vaz, Keith

    Sanders, Adrian

    Vis, Dr Rudi

    Sarwar, Mohammad

    Walley, Ms Joan

    Savidge, Malcolm

    Walter, Robert

    Sawford, Phil

    Ward, Ms Claire

    Sayeed, Jonathan

    Waterson, Nigel

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Watts, David

    Shaw, Jonathan

    Webb, Steve

    Sheerman, Barry

    Wells, Bowen

    Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

    White, Brian

    Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

    Whitehead, Dr Alan

    Shepherd, Richard

    Whitney, Sir Raymond

    Short, Rt Hon Clare

    Whittingdale, John

    Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

    Wicks, Malcolm

    Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

    Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

    Singh, Marsha

    Willetts, David

    Skinner, Dennis

    Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

    Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

    Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

    Smith, Angela (Basildon)

    Willis, Phil

    Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

    Winnick, David

    Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

    Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

    Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

    Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

    Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

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

    Wood, Mike

    Soley, Clive

    Woodward, Shaun

    Southworth, Ms Helen

    Woolas, Phil

    Spellar, John

    Worthington, Tony

    Spelman, Mrs Caroline

    Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

    Spicer, Sir Michael

    Wright, Tony (Cannock)

    Spring, Richard

    Yeo, Tim

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    Young, Rt Hon Sir George

    Starkey, Dr Phyllis

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Stevenson, George

    Stoate, Dr Howard

    NOES

    Chope, Christopher

    Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

    Forth, Rt Hon Eric

    Llwyd, Elfyn

    Ross, William (E Lond'y)

    Question accordingly agreed to.

    SECTION 5 OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (AMENDMENT) AcT 1993
    That, for the purposes of their approval under section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993, the Financial Statement and Budget Report 2000–01, the Economic and Fiscal Strategy Report 2000–01 and the Pre-Budget Report 2000 shall be treated as if they were instruments subject to the provisions of Standing Order No. 118 (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation).
    The House divided: Ayes 470, Noes 13.

    Division No. 5]

    AYES

    Ainger, Nick

    Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

    Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

    Buck, Ms Karen

    Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

    Burden, Richard

    Alexander, Douglas

    Burgon, Colin

    Allan, Richard

    Burns, Simon

    Allen, Graham

    Burstow, Paul

    Amess, David

    Butler, Mrs Christine

    Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

    Butterfill, John

    Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

    Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

    Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

    Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

    Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

    Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

    Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

    Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

    Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

    Campbell-Savours, Dale

    Atkins, Charlotte

    Caplin, Ivor

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Casale, Roger

    Austin, John

    Caton, Martin

    Bailey, Adrian

    Cawsey, Ian

    Baker, Norman

    Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

    Baldry, Tony

    Ballard, Jackie

    Chaytor, David

    Banks, Tony

    Chidgey, David

    Barnes, Harry

    Church, Ms Judith

    Barron, Kevin

    Clapham, Michael

    Bayley, Hugh

    Clappison, James

    Beard, Nigel

    Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

    Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

    Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

    Begg, Miss Anne

    Beith, Rt Hon A J

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

    Bell, Martin (Tatton)

    Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

    Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

    Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

    Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

    Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

    Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

    Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

    Bennett, Andrew F

    Clelland, David

    Benton, Joe

    Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

    Bercow, John

    Clwyd, Ann

    Beresford, Sir Paul

    Coffey, Ms Ann

    Bermingham, Gerald

    Coleman, Iain

    Berry, Roger

    Collins, Tim

    Best, Harold

    Colman, Tony

    Betts, Clive

    Cooper, Yvette

    Blackman, Liz

    Corbett, Robin

    Blears, Ms Hazel

    Corston, Jean

    Blunkett, Rt Hon David

    Cotter, Brian

    Blunt, Crispin

    Cousins, Jim

    Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

    Cran, James

    Borrow, David

    Cranston, Ross

    Boswell, Tim

    Crausby, David

    Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

    Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

    Bradley, Keith (Withington)

    Cummings, John

    Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

    Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

    Bradshaw, Ben

    Curry, Rt Hon David

    Brady, Graham

    Dalyell, Tarn

    Brake, Tom

    Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

    Brand, Dr Peter

    Darvill, Keith

    Breed, Colin

    Davey, Edward (Kingston)

    Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

    Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

    Brown, Rt Hon Gordon (Dunfermline E)

    Davidson, Ian

    Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

    Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

    Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

    Browne, Desmond

    Day, Stephen

    Browning, Mrs Angela

    Dean, Mrs Janet

    782

    Denham, John

    Hinchliffe, David

    Dismore, Andrew

    Hodge, Ms Margaret

    Dobbin, Jim

    Hoey, Kate

    Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

    Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

    Donohoe, Brian H

    Hope, Phil

    Doran, Frank

    Hopkins, Kelvin

    Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

    Horam, John

    Dowd, Jim

    Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

    Drew, David

    Howells, Dr Kim

    Drown, Ms Julia

    Hoyle, Lindsay

    Duncan Smith, Iain

    Hughes, Ms Bevertey (Stretford)

    Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

    Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

    Humble, Mrs Joan

    Eagle, Maria (L 'pool Garston)

    Hurst, Alan

    Edwards, Huw

    Hutton, John

    Efford, Clive

    Iddon, Dr Brian

    Ellman, Mrs Louise

    Illsley, Eric

    Ennis, Jeff

    Jack, Rt Hon Michael

    Etherington, Bill

    Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

    Evans, Nigel

    Jamieson, David

    Faber, David

    Jenkin, Bernard

    Fabricant, Michael

    Jenkins, Brian

    Fearn, Ronnie

    Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

    Field, Rt Hon Frank

    Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

    Fisher, Mark

    Fitzpatrick, Jim

    Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Fitzsimons, Mrs Loma

    Flint, Caroline

    Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

    Flynn, Paul

    Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

    Follett, Barbara

    Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

    Foster, Rt Hon Derek

    Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

    Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

    Foster, Michael (Worcester)

    Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

    Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

    Fox, Dr Liam

    Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

    Gale, Roger

    Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

    Gardiner, Barry

    Keeble, Ms Sally

    Garnier, Edward

    Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

    George, Andrew (St Ives)

    Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

    Gerrard, Neil

    Keetch, Paul

    Gibb, Nick

    Kemp, Fraser

    Gibson, Dr Ian

    Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

    Gidley, Sandra

    Key, Robert

    Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

    Khabra, Piara S

    Gilroy, Mrs Linda

    Kidney, David

    Godman, Dr Norman A

    Kilfoyle, Peter

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

    Gordon, Mrs Eileen

    King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

    King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

    Gray, James

    Kingham, Ms Tess

    Green, Damian

    Kirkbride, Miss Julie

    Greenway, John

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Grieve, Dominic

    Kumar, Dr Ashok

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    Ladyman, Dr Stephen

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Laing, Mrs Eleanor

    Grocott, Bruce

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Grogan, John

    Lammy, David

    Hague, Rt Hon William

    Lansley, Andrew

    Hain, Peter

    Laxton, Bob

    Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

    Leigh, Edward

    Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

    Lepper, David

    Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

    Letwin, Oliver

    Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

    Levitt, Tom

    Hanson, David

    Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

    Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

    Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

    Harvey, Nick

    Lidington, David

    Hawkins, Nick

    Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

    Heald, Oliver

    Linton, Martin

    Healey, John

    Livsey, Richard

    Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

    Loyd, Tony (Manchester C)

    Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

    Llwyd, Elfyn

    Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

    Lock, David

    Hendrick, Mark

    Loughton, Tim

    Heppell, John

    Love, Andrew

    Hewitt, Ms Patricia

    Luff, Peter

    783

    Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

    O'Brien, Bill (Notmanton)

    McAvoy, Thomas

    O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

    McCabe, Steve

    O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

    McCafferty, Ms Chris

    Olner, Bill

    McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)

    O'Neill, Martin

    Organ, Mrs Diana

    McDonagh, Siobhain

    Ottaway, Richard

    McDonnell, John

    Page, Richard

    McFall, John

    Palmer, Dr Nick

    McIntosh, Miss Anne

    Pearson, Ian

    McIsaac, Shona

    Pendry, Tom

    MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

    Pickthall, Colin

    McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

    Pike, Peter L

    Mackinlay, Andrew

    Plaskitt, James

    Maclean, Rt Hon David

    Pollard, Kerry

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Pond, Chris

    McNulty, Tony

    Pope, Greg

    MacShane, Denis

    Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

    Mactaggart, Fiona

    Pound, Stephen

    McWalter, Tony

    Powell, Sir Raymond

    McWilliam, John

    Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

    Madel, Sir David

    Prescott, Rt Hon John

    Mahon, Mrs Alice

    Primarolo, Dawn

    Major, Rt Hon John

    Prior, David

    Mallaber, Judy

    Prosser, Gwyn

    Maples, John

    Purchase, Ken

    Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

    Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

    Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

    Quinn, Lawrie

    Marshall, David (Shettleston)

    Radice, Rt Hon Giles

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

    Rammell, Bill

    Marshall-Andrews, Robert

    Randall, John

    Martlew, Eric

    Raynsford, Nick

    Mates, Michael

    Redwood, Rt Hon John

    Maude, Rt Hon Francis

    Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

    Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

    Rendel, David

    May, Mrs Theresa

    Robertson, John(Glasgow Anniesland)

    Meale, Alan

    Merron, Gillian

    Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

    Michael, Rt Hon Alun

    Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

    Michie, Bill (Shefld Heeley)

    Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

    Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

    Rooney, Terry

    Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    Miller, Andrew

    Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

    Mitchell, Austin

    Rowlands, Ted

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    Ruddock, Joan

    Moore, Michael

    Russell, Bob (Colchester)

    Moran, Ms Margaret

    Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

    Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

    St Aubyn, Nick

    Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

    Salmond, Alex

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

    Salter, Martin

    Sanders, Adrian

    Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie

    Sarwar, Mohammad

    Mudie, George

    Savidge, Malcolm

    Mullin, Chris

    Sawford, Phil

    Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

    Sayeed, Jonathan

    Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Naysmith, Dr Doug

    Shaw, Jonathan

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Sheerman, Barry

    Norman, Archie

    Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

    Norris, Dan

    Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

    784

    Short, Rt Hon Clare

    Truswell, Paul

    Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

    Turner, Dennis (Wolveiti'ton SE)

    Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

    Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

    Singh, Marsha

    Turner, Neil (Wigan)

    Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

    Twigg, Derek (Halton)

    Smith, Angela (Basildon)

    Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

    Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

    Tyler, Paul

    Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

    Tynan, Bill

    Tyrie, Andrew

    Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

    Vaz, Keith

    Smith, Sir Robert (WAb'd'ns)

    Vis, Dr Rudi

    Soley, Clive

    Walley, Ms Joan

    Southworth, Ms Helen

    Walter, Robert

    Spellar, John

    Ward, Ms Claire

    Spelman, Mrs Caroline

    Waterson, Nigel

    Spicer, Sir Michael

    Watts, David

    Spring, Richard

    Webb, Steve

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    Wells, Bowen

    Starkey, Dr Phyllis

    White, Brian

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Whitehead, Dr Alan

    Stevenson, George

    Whitney, Sir Raymond

    Stoate, Dr Howard

    Whittingdale, John

    Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

    Wicks, Malcolm,

    Straw, Rt Hon Jack

    Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

    Streeter, Gary

    Willetts, David

    Stuart, Ms Gisela

    Williams Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

    Stunell, Andrew

    Sutcliffe, Gerry

    Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

    Swayne, Desmond

    Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

    Willis, Phil

    Syms, Robert

    Winnick, David

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

    Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

    Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

    Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

    Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

    Wood, Mike

    Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

    Woodward, Shaun

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Woolas, Phil

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Worthington, Tony

    Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

    Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

    Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

    Wright, Tony (Cannock)

    Timms, Stephen

    Yeo, Tim

    Tipping, Paddy

    Young, Rt Hon Sir George

    Todd, Mark

    Touhig, Don

    Townend, John

    Trend, Michael

    NOES

    Beggs, Roy

    Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Burnett, John

    Ross, William (E Lond'y)

    Chope, Christopher

    Shepherd, Richard

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

    Skinner, Dennis

    Donaldson, Jeffrey

    Taylor, Sir Teddy

    Forth, Rt Hon Eric

    Thompson, William

    Gill, Christopher

    Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

    Johnson Smith,

    Question accordingly agreed to.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Placement Panel
  Mr. űpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) how many boys who have been assessed by the Placement Panel were recommended as suitable for transfer from Lisnevin to another juvenile justice centre; and if he will make a statement; [142166]

  (2) if children can be legally represented at the Placement Panel; and if he will make a statement; [142170]

  (3) who is responsible for deciding whether to implement the decisions of the Placement Panel; on what criteria this decision is made; and if he will make a statement; [142168]

  (4) how many boys assessed to be suitable for transfer by the Placement Panel were transferred to (a) St. Patrick's and (b) Rathgael; and if he will make a statement; [142167]

  (5) if there is an appeals process against the decisions of the Placement Panel; and if he will make a statement; [142171]

  (6) what the current membership of the Placement Panel is; and if he will make a statement; [142169]

  (7) how many boys in Lisnevin have been assessed by the Placement Panel for suitability for transfer to another juvenile justice centre since the introduction of the Criminal Justice (Children) (NI) (1998); and if he will make a statement. [142165]

  Mr. Ingram
  In the period 1 February 1999, when the provisions of the Criminal Justice (Children) (NI) Order 1998 came into effect, to 4 December 2000, a total of 537 cases of boys in custody in Lisnevin were assessed by the Placement Panel for suitability for transfer to a different juvenile justice centre. A number of boys would have been remanded several times in the period and accordingly their cases would have been reviewed on a number of occasions.

  In the same period, 93 recommendations for transfer to another less secure juvenile justice centre were made. Of these recommendations 59 transferred to St. Patrick's and 13 to Rathgael. Rathgael Juvenile Justice Centre is largely reserved for girls but will also accommodate a small number of especially vulnerable boys whereas St. Patrick's accepted boys only.

  It is the duty of the Secretary of State [under para 1(1) of Schedule 2 of the Criminal Justice (Children' s)(NI) Order 1998] to determine the placement of children sent to custody by the courts. Routinely boys, who are either remanded or committed, go directly to Lisnevin and the Secretary of State obtains advice from the non-statutory
  128W
  Placement Panel. The Panel comprises representatives from the three Juvenile Justice Centres, Probation and Juvenile Justice Branch of the Northern Ireland Office. Other specialists' input is called upon as required, for example from a psychologist who specialises in the treatment of children in custody.

  The function of the Panel is to advise the Secretary of State and his officials on placements. The Secretary of State's responsibility when deciding on placement has to balance the need of the child in terms of custodial surroundings and the child's own best interests with the wider need to protect the public and prevent the children from reoffending. As the legislation is intended to restrict custody to the most serious and persistent offenders, who present the most challenging behaviour, secure accommodation is more appropriate to their needs in most cases.

  Children's views of placement are made known to the Panel through the normal assessment process. The issue of placement came before the courts by way of a judicial review challenging a decision of the Secretary of State to place a boy in Lisnevin rather than St. Patrick's. In his judgment, the Lord Chief Justice for NI found that the Secretary of State's decision was not in breach of the standard international rules on the treatment of children, no abuse of power had occurred and there was no evidence that the applicant had suffered any disadvantage arising from the Secretary of State's placement decision. There is no appeals procedure as such; however children are advised of the Secretary of State's decision and during the course of the period when the child is in custody his or her case is kept under review. In the case referred to above, the Lord Chief Justice also found that this element of the procedure also fulfilled human rights obligations.

  With the consolidation of all juvenile justice custodial services onto a single site, the placement process will become obsolescent in its present form.

  Official Publications
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list each new publication issued by his Department since 1997; and what the total cost is to the Department of each publication. [141471]

  Mr. Mandelson
  Details of Northern Ireland Office publications from 1997 to the end of March 1999 can be found in the "Northern Ireland, Expenditure Plans and Priorities" reports published by the Department of Finance and Personnel/HM Treasury; CMs 3616, 3916 and 4217 refer. For the period 1 April 1999 to 31 March 2000, this information can be found in the Northern Ireland Office 2000 Departmental Report (Cm 4621). Copies of all four reports can be found in the Library. The information for the current year is being collated and will be published in the spring in the Northern Ireland Office's 2001 Departmental Report.

  Information on the total cost of each publication is not available centrally and can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Sponsored Immigrants
  Mr. Singh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how the Social Security (Immigration and Asylum) Consequential Amendments Regulations 2000 affect access to benefits for sponsored immigrants whose sponsors have died. [142858]

  Mr. Bayley
  There is no change to the policy that access to benefits should be available to a sponsored person where the person who undertook to support him has died. A technical defect in the amendments made by the Social Security (Immigration and Asylum) Consequential Amendments Regulations 2000 places an unintended restriction of six weeks on the period for which Income Support is available. We intend to bring forward amending regulations to correct the defect. In the meantime, extra-statutory payments will be made to any affected cases that do arise to ensure that the policy intention is met.

  Benefits
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many applications for Attendance Allowance have(a) been subject to reconsideration and (b) successful at reconsideration; and what was the average number of days taken to process appeals in each quarter of the last three years; [141493]

  (2) how many (a) claims, (b) reviews, (c) reconsiderations and (d) appeals there were on which a decision had not been reached at the end of each quarter of the last three years. [141494]

  Mr. Bayley
  The information is not available in the format requested as it is not possible, from overall statistics, to track individual claims through subsequent stages. The figures therefore show the total number or reconsiderations. All figures relate to Attendance Allowance.

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Reconsiderations and Reviews

  June

  9,038

  8,766

  2,267

  September

  8,437

  8,671

  2,177

  December

  6,851

  2,589

  —

  March

  10,398

  1,954

  —

  Success rate of Reconsideration and Review decisions made in this period

  June (percentage)

  43

  39

  34

  September (percentage)

  38

  37

  43

  December (percentage)

  43

  33

  —

  March (percentage)

  40

  40

  —

  Average Clearance time for Appeals (working days)

  June

  28.7

  46.1

  70.8

  September

  33.8

  50.4

  76.7

  December

  28.6

  1—

  —

  March

  36.1

  65

  —

  Claims outstanding

  June

  26,220

  34,757

  47,726

  September

  29,614

  32,026

  30,362

  December

  30,569

  42,183

  —

  March

  35,501

  47,927

  —

  130W

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Reviews and Reconsiderations outstanding

  June

  14,606

  19,205

  4,438

  September

  15,489

  19,229

  4,110

  December

  15,493

  14,977

  —

  March

  17,310

  6,337

  —

  Appeals outstanding

  June

  475

  765

  4,378

  September

  507

  701

  4,237

  December

  397

  1,905

  —

  March

  518

  3,542

  —

  1 Statistics are not available for this quarter due to a technical difficulty

  Note

  From October 1999, considerations replaced reviews as the mechanism for looking again at decisions

  I refer the hon. Member to my written answers on 22 November 2000, Official Report, columns 229–30W, and 7 November 2000, Official Report, columns 162–63W in which I stated that new procedures for assessing claims for Disability Living Allowance (DLA)/Attendance Allowance (AA) were introduced last year to improve the accuracy of decisions on entitlement.

  As with any major change to the processing of benefit, there was a lengthy period of adjustment both in the preceding months and immediately after the new procedures became effective. As a result, significant backlogs of work built up in DLA/AA operations. This has been tackled as a priority and work in most areas of the business has now returned to acceptable levels. However, as claims have been processed, this has led to increases in the levels of appeals outstanding as cases work through the system. Achieving a reduction in the level of appeals outstanding has been our highest priority and the numbers outstanding have reduced steadily in recent months.

  SERPS
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many outstanding claims for payment of SERPs to newly retired pensioners there were in January and June of each year since 1997; and if he will he make a statement; [141515]

  (2) what amounts of arrears of SERPs have been paid to newly retired pensioners in each month since 1997; and how many pensioners have benefited in each case. [141516]

  Mr. Rooker
  Figures are kept of the number of outstanding Retirement Pension claims of which SERPS is a component of the overall pension. The table provides details of the claims outstanding for the requested months.

  Date

  Claims outstanding

  January 1997

  50,978

  June 1997

  31,382

  January 1998

  43,703

  June 1998

  32,064

  January 1999

  33,441

  June 1999

  34,930

  January 2000

  33,849

  June 2000

  31,136

  131W
  The fact that claims are outstanding does not signify that payment of pension is overdue. This is because claims can be made up to four months in advance of the entitlement date.

  SERPS is a component of the overall Retirement Pension and details of the arrears of SERPS paid to newly retired pensioners since 1997 are not available. Details of arrears of pension paid were not maintained prior to April 1999 when the Benefits Agency began its recovery from the problems caused by the late delivery of the NIRS2 computer. Since that recovery began, and up to 30 November 2000, arrears of Retirement Pension to 137,000 pensioners totalling£47 million have been paid.

  Benefits Agency
  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many staff vacancies there were in the Benefits Agency in 1999 and 2000 in(a) England and Wales and (b) Greater London. [141941]

  Angela Eagle
  The information is in the table.

  Benefits Agency vacancies

  April 1999

  April 2000

  Greater London

  218

  61

  England and Wales

  1,220

  1,424

  Total

  1,438

  1,485

  Note

  A snapshot of the vacancy position has been taken at the start of each financial year, 1 April 1999 and 2000.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Commission Minutes
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission, what is his policy in respect of the publication of records of meetings of the Commission. [142132]

  Mr. Kirkwood
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Angela Smith) on 14 November 2000,Official Report, column 588W.

  Catering
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Chairman of the Catering Committee what is the policy of the Refreshment Department towards the supply to customers of shark-fin soup. [142120]

  Mr. Dennis Turner
  The Refreshment Department has no formal policy about the service of shark-fin soup, but the Director of Catering Services informs me that it has never been served in the nine years that she has worked here.

  Accommodation and Works Committee
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Chairman of the Accommodation and Works Committee on what date the Committee authorised expenditure on fig trees for the atrium of Portcullis House; and what budget was allocated for this purpose. [142134]
  132W
  Sir Sydney Chapman
  The proposal to build Portcullis House, which was approved by the House in 1993, from the outset included a covered courtyard with large scale planting. The design for the courtyard subsequently evolved in consultation with The Speaker's Advisory Committee on Works of Art, whose recommendation for the current scheme my Committee accepted. The budget was£183,000.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Chairman of the Accommodation and Works Committee what his policy is in respect of the publication of records of meetings of the Committee. [142135]

  Sir Sydney Chapman
  The policy is that laid down by the House as regards proceedings of Select Committees—that is, the Committee's formal Minutes are published at the end of each Session of Parliament.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Speeding Prosecutions
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Solicitor-General how many occasions in the last 12 months the CPS decided not to prosecute drivers suspected of driving in excess of 100 mph. [142108]

  The Solicitor-General
  The Crown Prosecution Service holds no central records on the outcome of particular offences. The information is held on individual case files, and could be recovered only by examining every relevant file in each CPS office. The costs of such an exercise would be prohibitive.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Kosovan Albanians
  Mr. Alexander
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much money the Government have made available to the UN High Commissioner for Refugees for emergency relief to the Kosovan Albanians to date. [142160]

  Clare Short
  The United Kingdom contributed resources worth over£9.4 million to UNHCR's programmes in Kosovo and neighbouring countries during and after the refugee crisis in 1999–2000. We have not contributed additional resources to UNHCR for its work in Kosovo in 2000–01 in reflection of our changing priorities in Kosovo and the increased involvement of other donors, but will continue to monitor the situation in case new needs arise. UNHCR's Kosovo programme provides assistance to Kosovar Albanians, as well as Serbs, Roma and other minority groups.

  Technical Assistance
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much the British Government have donated to the WTO technical assistance fund. [142194]

  Clare Short
  The UK has committed a total of£1.5 million to the World Trade Organisation (WTO) Technical Assistance fund, through extra-budgetary
  133W
  contributions. This is in addition to the UK's assessed contributions to the WTO' s regular budget, a proportion of which is allocated to technical assistance.

  St. Helena
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on progress towards the construction of an airfield on St. Helena. [142507]

  Clare Short
  A comparative study of the options for sea and air access to St. Helena is currently under way. The team undertaking the work visited the island in mid-October. We expect their draft report by the end of this month. We will then need to discuss the report and its recommendations with the St. Helena Government. The results of the study cannot be prejudged and no presumption can be made that it will lead to support being offered for the provision of an airfield. We hope decisions will be reached in early 2001.

  East Timor
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what projects her Department are funding to improve women's rights in East Timor. [142216]

  Clare Short
  The bulk of my Department's assistance for East Timor is channelled through trust funds established by the United Nations, for the Transitional Administration in East Timor, and the World bank, for reconstruction and rehabilitation programmes. UNTAET has a special gender unit and has set a target of 30 per cent. for the recruitment of women into the East Timorese public service.

  In addition we fund a small Human Resource Development programme implemented by Oxfam. Through this programme we have funded research by East Timorese women's groups into the obstacles preventing their participation decision making processes; Oxfam are also implementing a small project which aims to improve women's literacy.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Intellectual Property
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions his officials have had with the TRIPS Council regarding the compliance of the United Kingdom's intellectual property laws with Article 2 of the TRIPS Agreement relating to the obligation of the United Kingdom to comply with Article 10 of the Paris Convention. [142124]

  Dr. Howells
  Having notified its main dedicated intellectual property laws and regulations to the WTO, the United Kingdom participated in reviews of developed country WTO Members' TRIPS implementing legislation carried out by the TRIPS Council throughout 1996 and 997. Records of introductory statements made by the United Kingdom delegation, questions put to the United Kingdom delegation and the responses given were published by the WTO in four documents with references IP/Q/GBR/1, IP/Q2/GBR/1, IP/Q3/GBR/1 and IP/Q4/GBR/1. All of these documents are available to the public on the WTO 134W
  website, www.wto.org. None of these discussions touched explicitly on the question of Article 10 of the Paris Convention.

  Mobile Phone Radiation
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent assessment he has made of the health risks posed by(a) mobile phones held next to the ear and (b) mobile phones used where there is a connection provided between phone and ear. [142121]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Department of Health published a leaflet on 8 December providing information about the health risks from mobile phones. The Department of Trade and Industry has not commissioned any specific measurements of mobile phones held next to the ear. Mobile phones in use in the UK should comply with the exposure guidelines of the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation. The Department commissioned tests of hands-free kit, and the results of this work were published in August and are available on the DTI website http://www.dti.gov.uk/cii/.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the work his Department is undertaking, in conjunction with the Consumers' Association, into the dangers posed to consumers by mobile phone radiation. [142126]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Department has held discussions with the Consumers Association and the scientific community about the different results obtained from measurement tests of mobile phones hands-free kit. We have also discussed what further work could be undertaken. We are all agreed that even with the difference in measurement, the phones that were measured with the hands-free kit attached were still inside the exposure guidelines of the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection.

  Cat and Dog Fur
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the quantity of(a) cat and (b) dog fur imported into the United Kingdom in each year for the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [142131]

  Mr. Caborn
  The information requested is not available because the system of classification used to record trade does not separately identify cat and dog skins.

  Hope FM
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry for what reason Hope FM has been required to reduce its broadcasting power to 15 watts; and if he will make a statement. [142162]

  Ms Hewitt
  The decision to grant a temporary Restricted Service broadcasting licence to Hope FM and the conditions attached to it (such as the transmitter power) was made, independently of the Government, by the Radio Authority using their powers under the Broadcasting Acts.

  The scope for licensing Restricted Services, within the arrangements for licensing long-term Independent Radio licences, is very limited and the Radio Authority has to balance the heavy demand for such licences with a finite

  135W
  supply of spectrum. Similarly, in considering the terms attached to such licences (for example, the power, the population coverage and duration), the Authority seeks to ensure, as far as possible, that all Restricted Service licensees are treated equally and fairly, and that no interference is caused to other broadcasters by such services. This allows the limited amount of spectrum to be used and re-used by as many different operators as possible in an area and over a period of time.

  Broadband Fixed Wireless
  Mr. Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when further licences for the provision of broadband fixed wireless access at 40 GHz will be awarded by auction. [141662]

  Ms Hewitt
  We will be consulting industry on a range of options for awarding broadband fixed wireless access licences at 40 GHz. We have not yet decided what method should be used for awarding licences.

  Mr. Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what reasons underlay the decision to award by auction licences for the provision of broadband fixed wireless access at 28 GHz. [141660]

  Ms Hewitt
  In choosing an auction the overriding consideration was that well designed auctions place spectrum in the hands of those who value it most and are likely to develop it most effectively, generating the greatest long-term benefit for UK consumers and the national economy.

  Mr. Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the reasons for the outcome of the auction for licences for broadband fixed wireless access at 28 GHz; what contingency plans were in place for such an outcome; and how he intends to award the remaining licences. [141661]

  Ms Hewitt
  I have asked the Radiocommunications Agency for a report on the outcome of the auction and they will be reporting back to me shortly. It is a feature of spectrum auctions that some licences may remain unsold. I will be reviewing whether unsold licences should be awarded at a later date in the light of the Agency's report, which will explore ways of awarding licences in those regions where licences remained unsold.

  Gas-fired Power Stations
  Mr. Michael J. Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he will announce his decision on Veridian Cogeneration's proposal to build a gas-fired power station at the Rugby Cement works at Barton-on-Humber, North Lincolnshire. [142976]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I have today given clearance under section 14(1) of the Energy Act 1976 to Veridian Cogeneration to build a 14 megawatt gas-fired combined heat and power station at the Rugby Cement works at South Ferriby, Barton-on-Humber, North Lincolnshire. Combined heat and power plants are designed to produce both electricity and usable heat. They have environmental benefits due to their high levels of energy efficiency. The decision demonstrates the Government's continuing commitment to promote CHP, wherever practicable, and our commitment to reducing emissions of carbon to fulfil 136W
  the promises we gave at Kyoto. Copies of the Press Notice and decision letter are being placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Michael J. Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he will announce his decision on Montell UK Ltd.'s proposal to build a gas-fired power station at the Montell UK Ltd. works at Carrington, Greater Manchester. [142978]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I have today given clearance under section 14(1) of the Energy Act 1976 to Montell UK Ltd. to build a 60 megawatt gas-fired combined heat and power station at the Montell Polyolefins works at Carrington, Greater Manchester. Combined heat and power plants are designed to produce both electricity and usable heat. They have environmental benefits due to their high levels of efficiency.

  The decision demonstrates the Government's continuing commitment to promote CHP, wherever practicable, and our commitment to reducing emissions of carbon to fulfil the promises we gave at Kyoto.

  The decision to give clearance to the proposal on energy policy grounds is without prejudice to any determination under section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989.

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

  Mr. Michael J. Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he will announce his decision on Scottish and Southern Energy plc's proposal to build a gas-fired power station at the Kimberly-Clark paper mill at Northfleet, Kent. [142975]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I have today given clearance under section 14(1) of the Energy Act 1976 to Scottish and Southern Energy plc to build a 110 megawatt gas-fired combined heat and power station at the Kimberly-Clark paper mill at Northfleet in Kent. Combined heat and power plants are designed to produce both electricity and usable heat. They have environmental benefits due to their high levels of efficiency.

  The decision demonstrates the Government's continuing commitment to promote CHP, wherever practicable, and our commitment to reducing emissions of carbon to fulfil the promises we gave at Kyoto. The decision to give clearance to the proposal on energy policy grounds is without prejudice to any determination under section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989.

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

  Batteries and Accumulators Regulations
  Mr. Michael J. Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when the Government will introduce regulations to amend the Batteries and Accumulators (Containing Dangerous Substances) Regulations 1994. [142977]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Batteries and Accumulators (Containing Dangerous Substances) (Amendment) Regulations 2000 were made on 20 November and laid in the House on 22 November 2000. The Regulations will be available from the Stationary Office.
  137W
  The Regulations implement Commission Directive 98/101/EC of 22 December 1998, which adapts to technical progress the Batteries and Accumulators Containing Certain Dangerous Substances Directive (91/157/EEC).

  The Regulations come into force in Britain on 18 December 2000 and ban the marketing of consumer batteries and accumulators which contain more than 0.0005 per cent. of mercury by weight and mercuric-oxide button cells batteries which contain more than 2 per cent. of mercury by weight. The level of fine will be increased from 1 on the standard scale, to level 5, which currently stands at£5,000. This is to bring the Regulations into line with other recent environmental legislation.

  A consultation paper on these Regulations was issued by the Department on 18 September this year.

  Sub-post Offices
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the names and addresses of the sub-post offices which have closed since May 1997. [142465]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 12 December 2000]I refer the right hon. Member to the answer given on 16 November 2000,Official Report, column 718W.

  Departmental Policies (Blackpool, South)
  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will set out, including statistical information relating as directly as possible to the constituency, the effect on the Blackpool, South constituency of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [142223]

  Mr. Caborn
  My Department does not maintain statistical information down to constituency level.

  Constituents in Blackpool, South will have benefited from my Department's Employment Rights policies, which include the National Minimum Wage, the Working Time Directive, Part-Time Working Regulations and improved Maternity Leave. In addition, Blackpool, South is eligible for the Enterprise Grant Scheme.

  In the north-west we are also promoting regional innovation including the use of new technology, supporting small business, and developing Manufacturing Centres of Excellence.

  Digital Television
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has to require manufacturers of television sets to indicate on the sets that they are capable of receiving digital television. [141623]

  Ms Hewitt
  Consumers should be able to make an informed choice between purchasing an integrated digital television set and an analogue television set that requires a set top box to receive and decode digital signals. The Trade Descriptions Act 1968 prohibits the false or misleading descriptions of products, whether by means of a label or any other means, such as an oral statement.
  138W
  Therefore, it would be an offence to describe a television set falsely, and if there are occasions when traders are misleading consumers by describing analogue TVs as digital, I would urge consumers to take the matter up with their local trading standards office. My Department has contacted the Local Authorities Co-ordinating Body on Food and Trading Standards (LACOTS) to establish the nature and extent of any problem in this area.

  Exports (Israel)
  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry which Open General Export Licences covering the export of goods on the Military List do not include Israel as a permitted destination. [142238]

  Dr. Howells
  Open General Export Licences (OGELs) allow the export of specified controlled goods by any company, removing the need for exporters to apply for an individual licence, provided the shipment and destinations are eligible and the conditions are met.

  At present, Israel is not a permitted destination on the following two OGELs covering the export of goods on the Military List:

  (i) Military components, and,

  (ii) Accompanied personal effects: sporting guns.

  Copies of all OGELs are placed in the Library of the House.

  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many of the outstanding applications for Standard Individual Export Licence and Open Individual Export Licence outstanding at 16 November covering the export to Government or commercial consignees or end-users in Israel have been waiting for longer than six months for determination. [142237]

  Dr. Howells
  On 16 November, 77 applications for a Standard Individual Export Licence (SIEL) covering the export of goods on the military list to Government or commercial consignees or end-users in Israel were awaiting a decision. Of these 77 applications, three had been outstanding for more than six months.

  On the same date, 27 applications for an Open Individual Export Licence (OIEL) covering the export of specified goods to a number of specified destinations, including Israel, were awaiting a decision. Of these 27 applications, 14 had been outstanding for more than six months. It should be noted that because of the potentially wide variation in the goods and country coverage of OIELs it is to be expected that these cases will take longer to process than SIELs.

  Competitive Tendering
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many contracts have been underwritten by the ECGD via competitive tendering in each of the last 10 years. [142215]

  Mr. Caborn
  ECGD does not maintain information on the tender process as part of its business records and as such cannot quantify the number of contracts which it has supported over the last 10 years which have been won via competitive tendering.
  139W
  The total number of contracts supported by ECGD in each of the last 10 years is set out in the following table.

  Years

  Number

  1991–92

  78

  1992–93

  139

  1993–94

  138

  1994–95

  225

  1995–96

  170

  1996–97

  185

  1997–98

  117

  1998–99

  107

  1999–2000

  110

  2000–011

  68

  1 To 30 November

  HIV/AIDS
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if, at the World Trade Organisation under the terms of the TRIPS, he will support the use of compulsory licences to reduce the price of drugs to treat HIV/AIDS and related infections. [141744]

  Mr. Caborn
  This Government support the inclusion of compulsory licensing provisions in TRIPs as a safeguard against abuses of intellectual property rights and as an incentive for pharmaceutical research and development. Access to medicines depends on more than intellectual property rights and drug pricing; a range of other factors, including adequate health care infrastructure, are at least as important.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has made to the South African Government about their proposals to allow the generic substitution of drugs to reduce the cost of treatment for HIV/AIDS and other diseases. [141747]

  Mr. Caborn
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and I have had contacts with the South African Government aimed at supporting a partnership approach with the pharmaceutical industry to provide greater access to effective treatment for HIV/AIDS and other diseases. The South African Government has underlined its commitment to improve health care provision for all its people, while respecting its international obligations on intellectual property.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has made to Glaxo-Wellcome and Smith-Kline on the generic substitution of drugs for the treatment of HIV/AIDS and other diseases in South Africa. [141745]

  January 1999

  January 2000

  Local authority

  Nursery/primary

  Secondary

  Total

  Nursery/primary

  Secondary

  Total

  City of London

  1

  0

  1

  0

  1

  1

  Camden

  21

  8

  29

  17

  13

  30

  Greenwich

  52

  9

  61

  16

  14

  30

  Hackney

  38

  30

  68

  47

  22

  69

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  15

  8

  23

  14

  8

  22

  Islington

  10

  3

  13

  20

  11

  31

  Kensington and Chelsea

  3

  6

  9

  3

  2

  5

  Lambeth

  46

  12

  58

  36

  12

  48

  140W
  Mr. Caborn
  I have discussed a wide range of issues with the pharmaceutical industry. I visited Glaxo Wellcome before my recent visit to South Africa. I welcome their commitment to work with the South African Government to improve access to medicines in general and treatments for HIV/AIDS in particular.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received supporting the right of Southern African countries to use parallel importing and compulsory licensing to widen access to HIV/AIDS medicines. [141746]

  Mr. Caborn
  I have received letters from UK organisations and members of the public expressing concern about access to affordable medicines in Southern Africa. I believe that the best means of enabling this is through partnerships such as the UNAIDS Accelerating Access Initiative which involves the pharmaceutical companies working together with African Governments to provide therapies at substantially reduced cost.

  Local Loop Unbundling
  Mr. Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what provisions he is putting in place to ensure the benefits of local loop unbundling are extended to all areas. [141665]

  Ms Hewitt
  Local loop unbundling will allow operators to apply for space in any of BT's exchanges. The obligation to allow access to its local loop and to provide co-location at its exchanges applies also to Kingston Communications.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  School Funds
  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many schools made requests to parents for additional financial support towards school funds in 1999; and if he will make a statement. [141942]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The information is not held centrally.

  Teachers
  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many(a) primary and (b) secondary school teaching vacancies there were in (i) 1998–99 and (ii) 1999–2000, by (A) constituency and (B) education authority. [141944]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Vacancy data for parliamentary constituencies are not held centrally. The number of vacancies for qualified teachers is as follows:
  141W

  January 1999

  January 2000

  Local authority

  Nursery/primary

  Secondary

  Total

  Nursery/primary

  Secondary

  Total

  Lewisham

  21

  8

  29

  18

  20

  38

  Southwark

  47

  14

  61

  42

  30

  72

  Tower Hamlets

  80

  12

  92

  71

  26

  97

  Wandsworth

  17

  12

  29

  13

  10

  23

  City of Westminster

  14

  11

  25

  15

  14

  29

  Barking and Dagenham

  12

  3

  15

  8

  9

  17

  Barnet

  11

  21

  32

  29

  20

  49

  Bexley

  0

  7

  7

  13

  16

  29

  Brent

  13

  17

  30

  5

  5

  10

  Bromley

  6

  7

  13

  9

  3

  12

  Croydon

  25

  11

  36

  8

  28

  36

  Ealing

  32

  22

  54

  14

  18

  32

  Enfield

  19

  9

  28

  13

  15

  28

  Haringey

  20

  13

  33

  19

  14

  33

  Harrow

  12

  5

  17

  24

  14

  38

  Havering

  3

  10

  13

  1

  17

  18

  Hillingdon

  8

  19

  27

  9

  14

  23

  Hounslow

  5

  10

  15

  3

  5

  8

  Kingston

  6

  3

  9

  1

  7

  8

  Merton

  5

  6

  11

  3

  13

  16

  Newham

  34

  3

  37

  40

  14

  54

  Redbridge

  7

  7

  14

  6

  1

  7

  Richmond upon Thames

  2

  2

  4

  3

  12

  15

  Sutton

  2

  5

  7

  0

  1

  1

  Waltham Forest

  2

  5

  7

  0

  4

  4

  Birmingham

  59

  12

  71

  39

  21

  60

  Coventry

  2

  10

  12

  8

  15

  23

  Dudley

  2

  5

  7

  7

  9

  16

  Sandwell

  17

  11

  28

  7

  8

  15

  Solihull

  2

  0

  2

  5

  6

  11

  Walsall

  5

  7

  12

  2

  6

  8

  Wolverhampton

  14

  19

  33

  5

  5

  10

  Knowsley

  3

  1

  4

  5

  6

  11

  Liverpool

  4

  1

  5

  0

  2

  2

  St. Helens

  4

  1

  5

  1

  0

  1

  Sefton

  0

  1

  1

  3

  5

  8

  Wirral

  13

  4

  17

  2

  8

  10

  Bolton

  0

  2

  2

  0

  1

  1

  Bury

  0

  1

  1

  1

  0

  1

  Manchester

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Oldham

  6

  3

  9

  7

  4

  11

  Rochdale

  4

  2

  6

  2

  2

  4

  Salford

  0

  1

  1

  1

  2

  3

  Stockport

  3

  2

  5

  0

  6

  6

  Tameside

  0

  5

  5

  1

  0

  1

  Trafford

  0

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Wigan

  5

  10

  15

  3

  10

  13

  Barnsley

  1

  1

  2

  0

  2

  2

  Doncaster

  0

  0

  0

  2

  0

  2

  Rotherham

  0

  1

  1

  0

  1

  1

  Sheffield

  2

  0

  2

  6

  0

  6

  Bradford

  15

  3

  18

  14

  28

  42

  Calderdale

  4

  1

  5

  3

  0

  3

  Kirklees

  2

  1

  3

  0

  3

  3

  Leeds

  6

  1

  7

  8

  10

  18

  Wakefield

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  2

  Gateshead

  9

  0

  9

  5

  0

  5

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  7

  10

  17

  4

  5

  9

  North Tyneside

  10

  16

  26

  1

  14

  15

  South Tyneside

  0

  1

  1

  0

  1

  1

  Sunderland

  6

  5

  11

  9

  4

  13

  Isles of Scilly

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Bath and North East Somerset

  3

  1

  4

  3

  1

  4

  City of Bristol

  6

  6

  12

  9

  4

  13

  North Somerset

  3

  7

  10

  8

  6

  14

  South Gloucestershire

  3

  1

  4

  2

  1

  3

  Hartlepool

  6

  3

  9

  2

  1

  3

  Middlesbrough

  4

  2

  6

  2

  2

  4

  Redcar and Cleveland

  2

  4

  6

  0

  5

  5

  Stockton on Tees

  2

  5

  7

  1

  5

  6

  City of Kingston-upon-Hull

  0

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  4

  0

  4

  2

  0

  2

  142W 143W

  January 1999

  January 2000

  Local authority

  Nursery/primary

  Secondary

  Total

  Nursery/primary

  Secondary

  Total

  North East Lincolnshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  North Lincolnshire

  4

  3

  7

  8

  2

  10

  North Yorkshire

  3

  5

  8

  4

  5

  9

  York

  1

  6

  7

  1

  5

  6

  Bedfordshire

  5

  19

  24

  20

  19

  39

  Luton

  7

  17

  24

  5

  9

  14

  Buckinghamshire

  18

  15

  33

  36

  16

  52

  Milton Keynes

  8

  2

  10

  6

  1

  7

  Derbyshire

  11

  13

  24

  25

  11

  36

  Derby

  13

  6

  19

  8

  11

  19

  Dorset

  1

  1

  2

  9

  10

  19

  Poole

  2

  3

  5

  2

  0

  2

  Bournemouth

  0

  1

  1

  0

  2

  2

  Durham

  2

  0

  2

  2

  0

  2

  Darlington

  0

  0

  0

  3

  0

  3

  East Sussex

  10

  12

  22

  9

  14

  23

  Brighton and Hove

  2

  2

  4

  5

  6

  11

  Hampshire

  36

  57

  93

  89

  53

  142

  Portsmouth

  10

  3

  13

  6

  13

  19

  Southampton

  6

  9

  15

  8

  17

  25

  Leicester

  5

  8

  13

  7

  6

  13

  Leicester City

  8

  3

  11

  11

  9

  20

  Rutland

  0

  1

  1

  2

  0

  2

  Staffordshire

  15

  6

  21

  17

  10

  27

  Stoke

  2

  1

  3

  8

  14

  22

  Wiltshire

  17

  4

  21

  10

  4

  14

  Swindon

  8

  2

  10

  5

  5

  10

  Bracknell Forest

  0

  0

  0

  4

  5

  9

  Windsor and Maidenhead

  3

  6

  9

  4

  5

  9

  West Berkshire

  2

  0

  2

  4

  0

  4

  Reading

  0

  2

  2

  10

  4

  14

  Slough

  8

  10

  18

  3

  10

  13

  Wokingham

  9

  5

  14

  5

  9

  14

  Cambridgeshire

  1

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Peterborough

  0

  2

  2

  0

  0

  0

  Cheshire

  10

  4

  14

  12

  11

  23

  Halton

  2

  2

  4

  1

  5

  6

  Warrington

  7

  0

  7

  9

  2

  11

  Devon

  6

  2

  8

  18

  10

  28

  Plymouth

  0

  5

  5

  4

  19

  23

  Torbay

  2

  1

  3

  2

  5

  7

  Essex

  48

  34

  82

  83

  73

  156

  Southend

  6

  3

  9

  5

  16

  21

  Thurrock

  9

  12

  21

  19

  9

  28

  Hereford

  2

  4

  6

  8

  3

  11

  Worcester

  6

  5

  11

  3

  3

  6

  Kent

  52

  37

  89

  32

  48

  80

  Medway

  10

  6

  16

  4

  9

  13

  Lancashire

  18

  12

  30

  17

  4

  21

  Blackburn with Darwen

  11

  3

  14

  7

  6

  13

  Blackpool

  2

  1

  3

  3

  6

  9

  Nottinghamshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  City of Nottingham

  0

  0

  0

  18

  6

  24

  Shropshire

  0

  1

  1

  1

  1

  2

  Telford and Wrekin

  0

  0

  0

  7

  4

  11

  Cornwall

  6

  0

  6

  8

  3

  11

  Cumbria

  0

  2

  2

  0

  0

  0

  Gloucestershire

  5

  4

  9

  20

  5

  25

  Hertfordshire

  12

  19

  31

  10

  7

  17

  Isle of Wight

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  Lincolnshire

  11

  11

  22

  11

  8

  19

  Norfolk

  45

  10

  55

  15

  15

  30

  Northamptonshire

  3

  3

  6

  1

  9

  10

  Northumberland

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Oxfordshire

  7

  4

  11

  4

  4

  8

  Somerset

  7

  4

  11

  6

  4

  10

  Suffolk

  14

  17

  31

  8

  11

  19

  Surrey

  11

  9

  20

  13

  24

  37

  Warwickshire

  9

  5

  14

  7

  6

  13

  West Sussex

  9

  8

  17

  27

  11

  38

  England

  1,374

  939

  2,313

  1,420

  1,246

  2,666

  144W 145W
  The number of regular teachers in maintained schools increased by 6,900 between January 1998 and January 2000.

  A DfEE survey of maintained secondary schools in England in the first week of September 2000 indicated that there were about 1,000 secondary teacher vacancies. There was a growth of 2,000 in the number of people training to be teachers between 1999–2000 and 2000–01, the first such increase since 1992–93.

  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many new teachers he expects will qualify in 2000. [141946]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Since 1 January 2000, 22,900 people have been awarded Qualified Teacher Status in England.

  New Deal
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many extra staff have been employed in the further education sector to deal with the New Deal. [142283]

  Mr. Wills
  [holding answer 12 December 2000]This information is not collected centrally. Staff deployment is a matter for colleges as independent employers.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  British Overseas Territories
  Mr. Austin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what issues were discussed at the last meeting of the British Overseas Territories Consultative Council; and if he will make a statement. [142471]

  Mr. Battle
  At the meeting of the Overseas Territories Consultative Council held in October this year, a full exchange of views took place on the relationship between the UK and the territories, and on international financial initiatives, immigration and nationality matters, internal security including police and prison services, accessible justice and sustainable development.

  Mr. Austin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on progress on the implementation of the policies set out in the White Paper, Partnership for Progress and Prosperity. [142470]

  Mr. Battle
  Considerable progress has been made in key areas covered by the White Paper. Partnership between the political leaders of the territories and the Government has been strengthened by two meetings of the annual Consultative Council and visits by Baroness Scotland, Minister with responsibility for the Overseas Territories, to several territories; constitutional modernisation has been promoted in several territories with amendments already agreed for both the British Virgin Islands and Montserrat; a number of programmes to support good governance in such areas as police and prison services, disaster preparedness, and public service management have been supported, and a number of strategic environmental projects funded in all territories; capital punishment for murder and judicial corporal punishment have been abolished in all territories;146W
  an Order in Council to de-criminalise homosexual acts between consenting adults in private is before the Privy Council; and an independent review of the regulation of financial sectors in the Overseas Territories was published in October. Preparations for an Overseas Territories Bill granting British citizenship have reached an advanced stage.

  Mr. Austin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he intends to introduce legislation offering British citizenship to citizens of the British Overseas Territories; and if he will make a statement. [142469]

  Mr. Battle
  We are fully committed to introducing legislation to give British citizenship to the people of the Overseas Territories. We will make Parliamentary time available to introduce the legislation for this measure as soon as practicable. Preparatory work has been done to agree the principles of such a Bill along with drafting instructions for Parliamentary Counsel.

  Ilois People
  Mr. Austin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what arrangements he is making to allow the return of the Ibis islanders to the British Indian Ocean Territory; and if he will make a statement. [142473]

  Mr. Battle
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith) on 13 November 2000,Official Report, column 511W.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) if he will discuss(a) with the Government of Mauritius and (b) with the Government of the Seychelles the environmental and ecological situation in those atolls of the Chagos Archipelago and Diego Garcia before facilitating the return of Ibis to lands of ancestral graves; [142393]

  (2) if he will discuss with President Clinton the carrying out of an environmental and ecological assessment of the areas of the Chagos Archipelago and Diego Garcia, which have been uninhabited for 30 years before facilitating the return of Ilois people to lands of their ancestral graves. [142392]

  Mr. Battle
  Environmental and ecological assessments are an integral part of the studies being undertaken into the feasibility of resettlement on the uninhabited islands of the Archipelago. We will take these factors into account most carefully before any decision is taken by the Government over resettlement by the Ilois.

  Human Rights (China)
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what position he adopted in discussions with EU colleagues at the General Affairs Council on Tuesday 4 December on the criteria for evaluation of the bilateral dialogue with China on human rights to be made public and for there to be a timetable for achieving objectives. [142136]

  Mr. Battle
  Following a UK initiative, the EU has been engaged in a review of its human rights dialogue with China. This process includes the setting of objectives for
  147W
  the dialogue. The 4 December General Affairs Council did not discuss the review. We expect the General Affairs Council on 29 January to do so.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he is taking to obtain copies of the photographs that the Chinese authorities have shown to UK and EU officials, which the Chinese authorities maintain are of the Panchen Lama, Gedhun Choekyi Nyima. [142138]

  Mr. Battle
  The British Embassy in Beijing made a formal request for the photographs on 27 October. The Chinese responded on 10 November that such a request was "unreasonable".

  Subsequently, I summoned the Chinese Ambassador Ma Zhengang on 29 November to express our disappointment at the reply and to repeat our request. The Ambassador agreed to convey my concerns to the authorities in Beijing.

  We will again press the Chinese during the next round of the UK/China human rights dialogue to release their photographs.

  Iran
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to visit Iran. [141450]

  Mr. Hain
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary last met his Iranian counterpart, Dr. Kharrazi, in New York in September. He welcomed Dr. Kharrazi's invitation that the Foreign Secretary visit Iran in 2001, in the context of Iran's celebration of the Year of the Dialogue of Civilisations. No date has yet been set.

  Coca Fields (Ecuador)
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has received concerning the fumigation of coca fields in Ecuador with the Fusarium Oxysporum fungus. [142197]

  Mr. Battle
  We have received no representations.

  There are some small coca plantations on Ecuador's northern border with Colombia, but the country remains principally a transit route for cocaine destined (predominantly) for the US. We are not aware of the use of Fusarium Oxysporum as a bio-control agent.

  Tibet
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the recent UK and China human rights dialogue, with special reference to Tibet. [142210]

  Mr. Battle
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Stevenson) on 7 November 2000,Official Report, column 186W.

  East Timorese Refugees
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had 148W
  with his UN counterparts concerning the remaining East Timorese refugees in West Timor; and if he will make a statement. [142217]

  Mr. Battle
  We take every opportunity to discuss the situation in West Timor with the UN counterparts. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary discussed this issue with the Indonesian Foreign Minister Shihab in the margins of the UN General Assembly in New York in September. I discussed the subject most recently with the Indonesian Foreign Minister on 12 December, in the margins of the EU-ASEAN Foreign Ministers' meeting.

  We are, of course, concerned about the situation in the camps in West Timor and urge the Government of Indonesia to comply fully with the terms of the UN Security Council Resolution 1319 to disarm and disband the militia and facilitate the repatriation of those refugees who wish to return to East Timor and resettle those who wish to remain in Indonesia.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Terminal Five Inquiry
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps he is taking to investigate premature press leaks of confidential and market-sensitive material relating to the findings of the Terminal Five Planning Inspector's report. [142060]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  While there has been some speculative media comment about the findings of the Heathrow Terminal Five Inquiry Inspector's report there is nothing to suggest that the report or its contents has been leaked. The Inspector has not yet delivered his report to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will set out his timetable for ministerial review and decisions on the Heathrow Terminal Five planning inquiry and for reporting to Parliament on the inquiry. [142061]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The Public Inquiry into the proposed fifth terminal at Heathrow closed in March 1999. The Inquiry Inspector said he intended to deliver his report within two years of the end of the Inquiry but he hoped to improve on that. The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions recognises the need to bring this matter to a conclusion but the report will require full and careful consideration when it is received. It is not yet possible to say when the decision will be issued.

  Allotments
  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many unused allotment plots there were in each local authority in 1999. [142067]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The information requested is not currently held centrally. However, the "English Allotments Survey—1997", which was commissioned by
  149W
  my Department, provides information on the number of vacant statutory allotments in each of the following areas:

  Area

  Number of vacant statutory plots

  Inner London

  57

  Outer London

  4,189

  Greater Manchester

  496

  Merseyside

  452

  South Yorkshire

  874

  Tyne and Wear

  190

  West Midlands

  2,449

  West Yorkshire

  463

  Avon

  1,469

  Bedfordshire

  502

  Berkshire

  904

  Buckinghamshire

  716

  Cambridgeshire

  759

  Cheshire

  396

  Cleveland

  365

  Cornwall

  103

  Cumbria

  292

  Derbyshire

  390

  Devon

  273

  Dorset

  276

  Durham

  316

  East Sussex

  642

  Essex

  2,018

  Gloucestershire

  558

  Hampshire

  1,527

  Hereford and Worcester

  301

  Hertfordshire

  1,044

  Humberside

  1,284

  Isle of Wight

  87

  Kent

  963

  Lancashire '

  66

  Leicestershire

  1,313

  Lincolnshire

  516

  Norfolk

  405

  Northamptonshire

  529

  Northumberland

  74

  North Yorkshire

  368

  Nottinghamshire

  721

  Oxfordshire

  832

  Shropshire

  52

  Somerset

  274

  Staffordshire

  532

  Suffolk

  1,015

  Surrey

  892

  Warwickshire

  348

  West Sussex

  315

  Wiltshire

  439

  Total

  33,047

  Park and Ride Schemes
  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assistance his Department intends to give to local authorities wishing to initiate permanent park and ride schemes. [142064]

  Mr. Hill
  Park and ride schemes developed by local authorities as part of their Local Transport Plans can help reduce congestion while maintaining accessibility to town and city centres. Outside London my Department provides funding to local authorities for transport infrastructure through the Local Transport Plan system. This can be used for park and ride schemes but it is for local 150W
  authorities to determine priorities within their programmes. Inside London the allocation of funds in response to Boroughs' Interim Transport Plans is a matter for the Mayor and Transport for London.

  Our revised planning guidance note PPG13 on Transport, which is due to be published soon, will give further guidance on planning aspects of park and ride proposals. Advice on other aspects of setting up and operating bus-based park and ride schemes is given a Good Practice Guide published earlier this year by the English Historic Towns Forum with the support of the Department.

  The Secretary of State has already made clear that he will give priority to well designed and well conceived park and ride schemes. The Department's 10-year plan "Transport 2010" published in July shows that we expect up to 100 new park and ride schemes to be implemented during the next 10 years.

  Local Government Functions
  Caroline Flint
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what recent advice his Department has offered to local authorities with respect to clear separation of the cabinet and scrutiny functions in local government. [142051]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  As my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and the Regions announced to the House on 26 October 2000,Official Report, columns 173–74W, we have now published guidance on new council constitutions for English local authorities, which includes guidance on setting up executive arrangements involving separate cabinets and overview and scrutiny committees.

  National School Bus Strategy
  Caroline Flint
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what recent representations he has received in favour of a national school bus strategy. [142049]

  Mr. Hill
  None.

  Regeneration Funding (Doncaster)
  Caroline Flint
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is the total sum of public funds secured for regeneration purposes for the Borough of Doncaster since 1997; and if he will make a statement. [142050]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  Doncaster has secured the following resources for regeneration activities since 1997:

  Single Regeneration Budget (SRB)

  A total of £47.9 million for a wide range of projects. The total includes a notional allocation of resources for the South Yorkshire Coalfields scheme and the Dearne Valley scheme, both of which go wider than Doncaster. The total also includes the Round 3 Scheme (£14.2 million) that was approved in 1996–97 but began the following year.

  Land and Property

  A total of£50.1 million for a range of Yorkshire Forward (RDA) and English Partnerships reclamation/development projects.
  151W
  New Deal for Communities (NDC)

  Doncaster has secured£200,000 under Phase 2 of the NDC programme, which facilitates delivery plan development, up to March 2001. A further£90,000 has also been paid for early win projects and there are others in the pipeline, but not yet approved. If Doncaster wins resources following submission of its delivery plan in March, we expect funding to be around£50 million over 10 years, starting in 2001–02.

  Neighbourhood Renewal Fund (NRF)

  Doncaster has been allocated£17.5 million over the next three years through NRF to help it improve services in its poorest communities. This funding is dependent on Doncaster having a satisfactory Best Value Performance plan, making a commitment to setting up a Local Strategic Partnership and a commitment to a local Neighbourhood Renewal strategy.

  European Funding

  A total of£25.6 million was secured under Objective 2, Konver 2 and RECHAR 2 for a wide range of projects, including some operating on sub-regional basis.

  Doncaster also stands to benefit from the£700 million of structural funds that will be spent in South Yorkshire under the Objective 1 programme over the next seven years.

  The following resources, although not primarily concerned with regeneration, are also likely to bring wider regeneration benefits.

  Housing

  Since 1997 a total of£32.9 million has been allocated under the Housing Investment Programme (HIP), which included funds allocated through the Capital Receipts Initiative from 1997–98 up to and including 1999–2000, for all housing purposes. A breakdown of how much Doncaster used to support specific regeneration activity is not available, but the council has used housing investment to underpin neighbourhood renewal activity within priority areas.

  Transport

  Funding has been approved for the following major transport schemes that are likely to bring wider regeneration benefits. Denaby Main Diversion (near Conisborough)—£9 million over the next three years. Doncaster North Bridge—£18 million 2000–01, further£30 million over the next three years.

  London Transport (Investment)
  Mr. Syms
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what discretion the Mayor of London will have as to where the money allocated to London Transport in the 10-Year plan is spent. [141670]

  Mr. Hill
  The remaining responsibilities of London Transport will in due course be transferred to Transport for London (TfL) under the control of the Mayor of London. The Mayor is free to decide priorities for spending the money we have allocated to London in the 10-Year Plan subject to certain constraints. The Government will determine the precise level of the GLA Transport Grant each year following consultation with the Mayor. The Mayor must consult the London Assembly about his budget for TfL and the Assembly can amend it by a two-thirds majority. TfL must meet all its contractual 152W
  commitments and the requirements of the Best Value regime. The Mayor must prepare a Transport Strategy which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State may direct the Mayor to revise if he considers it (or any part of it) inconsistent with national policies and detrimental to any area outside Greater London. The Mayor must obtain my right hon. Friend's approval to a general plan for applying the net proceeds from any road user charging or workplace parking levy scheme.

  Bypasses
  Mr. Syms
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans for bypasses have been(a) cancelled and (b) proposed since May 1997. [141485]

  Mr. Hill
  [holding answer 11 December 2000]: Twenty of the 40 schemes in our Targeted Programme of trunk road improvements are bypasses. This does not include any bypasses approved under the Local Transport Plan process. On trunk roads we cancelled two projects in 1997—Hereford and Salisbury—because of their serious impact on environmentally sensitive sites.

  Traffic (South Gloucestershire)
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will set out the basis on which he has calculated changes in traffic levels in South Gloucestershire between 1998 and 1999; and if he will make a statement on the differences between the results produced by his methodology and the results arising from the council's automatic traffic counts. [141434]

  Mr. Hill
  [holding answer 11 December 2000]: We have not attempted to calculate changes in traffic levels between years. Improvements to the way traffic flows are calculated at a local level means that the overall estimated traffic flow for South Gloucestershire has decreased, however the previous estimates are not on a comparable basis. This does not imply there has been an actual decrease in traffic levels, indeed the change is consistent with increased traffic counts at individual census points; rather it implies that previous estimates of overall traffic flow for South Gloucestershire were overstated.

  In previous years traffic flow on road links that crossed a local authority boundary were attributed to the authority in which the traffic count took place. With the advantage of computer based mapping software my statisticians have been able to more accurately attribute traffic flow on such road links to the relevant authorities taking account of the length of road within each authority's boundary. It is clearly fairer and more accurate to end links at an authority boundary so that one authority does not artificially benefit from traffic on a length of road that falls within another authority.

  Unfortunately for South Gloucestershire it previously benefited from several high flow links where part of the link lay in a neighbouring authority but the count site was in South Gloucestershire. It further benefited from a number of low flow links where the count was in a neighbouring authority and therefore previously did not affect the estimate for South Gloucestershire.

  The traffic flow estimates recorded by the authority are in broad agreement with the traffic flow estimates from my Department's counts. Rather it is the more equitable

  153W
  split of cross boundary links that has led to an estimate for 1999 that is lower than that for 1998. This does not imply that traffic in South Gloucestershire has gone down but that previous estimates are likely to have been too high.

  Cross-sectoral Bodies
  Tony Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the local, sub-regional and regional partnerships, boards of zones and other cross-sectoral bodies supported by his Department; and the funding streams with which they are associated. [142185]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  This information is not held centrally. Recent reports point to a wide range of formal, informal, statutory and non-statutory partnerships covering a wide range of interests. As a result, the Government are trying to encourage greater rationalisation. The recently issued draft guidance on local strategic partnerships is intended to encourage the development of a single co-ordinated framework for partnership arrangements at the local level. We have also set up the Regional Co-ordination Unit. The unit has recently published an action plan which sets out how the Government intend to modernise the way they work at regional and local level and improve the way services are delivered on the ground.

  Crime and Disorder Act
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what resources he allocated to local authorities in(a) 1999–2000 and (b) 2000–01 to enable them to carry out the new duties imposed on them by section 17 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. [142448]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 12 December 2000]: It is not possible to specify a particular figure. In the Comprehensive Spending Review, the Government took into account the pressures on local government, including this one, as well as the scope for efficiencies. Spending plans from 1999–2000 onwards represent our view of the appropriate level of local government funding in the round. The Government increased general block grant to local authorities by£1.5 billion in each of the years 1999–2000 and 2000–01. General grant is not hypothecated, and it is not possible to identify how much has been included to meet individual burdens and pressures.

  Housing Green Paper
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to implement the proposals in the Housing Green Paper, "Quality and Choice: A Decent Home for All?". [142561]

  Mr. Prescott
  Our Housing Green Paper was widely acknowledged as the most comprehensive Government review of housing for 23 years. We are tody publishing a policy statement, "Quality and Choice: A decent home for all—the way forward for housing". This sets out our plans for taking forward the proposals in the Green Paper, taking account of the views expressed during consultation. New legislation is a key part of those plans, and they are backed by the significant increase in resources for housing announced in July.
  154W
  There was widespread support for our proposals. Only seven out of more than 1,000 respondents disagreed fundamentally with our aims and principles.

  Broadly, we are taking forward the proposals in the way we set out in the Green Paper. In a number of cases we have modified proposals to reflect suggestions or concerns raised in the consultation process.

  Decent homes are an essential requirement for all. They improve health and educational achievement. They have a major impact on the quality of our lives and on the strength of our communities.

  In taking forward the proposals in the Green Paper, we are implementing a comprehensive policy that will help us to meet our aim to offer everyone the opportunity of a decent home.

  Housing policies are an integral part of our broader agenda to tackle poverty and social exclusion and to regenerate the most deprived areas. Our Housing Green Paper and today's policy statement complement the National Strategy for Neighbourhood Renewal and our Urban and Rural White Papers, which together establish a framework for improving the quality of life and promoting sustainable communities.

  Our policies will deliver improvements in quality and choice for everyone, regardless of their circumstances.

  For the majority of people in this country who already own their own homes, or who aspire to home ownership, we are:
  introducing legislation to improve the home buying and selling process to make it easier and more reliable, and to help tackle gazumping and other problems;
  overhauling local authority powers to allow better targeted help to renovate and improve homes owned by poorer households and in deprived areas;
  launching a Starter Home Initiative to help nurses, teachers, police and other key workers to buy homes in areas where high housing costs might otherwise have priced them out of the communities they serve;
  reforming leasehold law and introducing a new tenure, commonhold, for the joint ownership of blocks of flats; and
  improving benefit help for unemployed home-owners moving back into work.

  For people who rent in the private sector, we are:
  spreading good practice among private landlords through voluntary accreditation schemes and through the further development of the National Approved Lettings Scheme and a pilot Tenancy Deposit Scheme;
  introducing, as soon as parliamentary time allows, legislation for a national licensing scheme to raise standards for Houses in Multiple Occupation;
  developing for further consultation proposals to take action to tackle problems associated with bad landlords in low demand areas, through selective licensing and benefit measures.

  The Green Paper set out our policies for the future of social housing, provided at affordable rents by local authorities and registered social landlords. We see a continuing role for social housing in providing decent homes for individuals and families who cannot afford the costs of buying their own home or renting in the private sector in the short or long term. Our strategy will

  155W
  modernise social housing, turning it into a tenure which offers quality and choice and promotes sustainable communities by:
  bringing all social housing up to a decent standard by 2010;
  promoting diversity and a wider range of landlords through stock transfer and new investment and ownership options for council housing;
  improving the supply of new social housing through an increase in investment, more effective use of planning powers for affordable housing, and better integration of social and private housing;
  increasing choice through lettings policies that treat tenants as customers and promote sustainable communities;
  examining new tenure options to improve social landlords' use of housing to meet the needs of local communities;
  ensuring high standards of service through the rigorous application of Best Value; and
  empowering tenants in the management of their homes through Tenant Participation Compacts.

  We are also implementing a 10-year plan to move to a fairer, more coherent system for setting rents in the social housing sector, complementing our drive to improve the quality and supply of affordable housing and to give tenants more choice. We have modified the proposals in the Green Paper in the light of respondents' views. The key elements are:
  keeping rents at affordable levels, well below those in the private sector, and based on size, relative property values and local earnings;
  achieving greater coherence between the rents charged by local authorities and registered social landlords, removing arbitrary differences;
  ensuring that reforms do not impose annual rent increases for any tenant of more than£2 per week above normal inflation-linked increases;
  phasing reforms over 10 years and allowing social landlords some flexibility over detailed implementation; and
  ensuring the continuation of a healthy and diverse social rented sector.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security has also announced action to improve the delivery of Housing Benefit. We are:
  setting up an expert team to work with struggling local authorities to turn things round;
  developing a new national Performance Framework to raise standards of administration across the board;
  taking forward work to simplify Housing Benefit to make it easier for local authorities to administer and easier for pensioners and working people to claim; and
  reducing disincentives to work, helping young people in particular through changes to the Single Room Rent rules.

  Our strategy also incudes action to tackle social exclusion and protect vulnerable people, including:
  legislation to strengthen the protection available for people who are homeless through no fault of their own;
  tackling rough-sleeping, fuel poverty and anti-social behaviour; and
  ensuring the effective implementation of a new Supporting People programme to provide more effective support to elderly and other vulnerable people who need it.

  All of our measures are backed up where necessary by our spending plans for the next three years, which we announced in July. They build on the additional investment which has already been released through our Capital Receipts Initiative and the 1998 Comprehensive Spending Review.
  156W
  In 1997, we inherited capital spending plans for housing of just£1.5 billion. We increased investment in 1997–98 and have increased it year-on-year since then. This year (2000–01) capital investment is already double the level we inherited in 1997. It will continue to rise to over£4 billion by 2003–04 including, over the next three years:
  further increases in local authority capital investment to tackle the backlog of repairs and modernisation work in council housing, including additional resources for new arms-length management arrangements, on which we are issuing separate, detailed consultation today;
  a doubling of the Housing Corporation's Approved Development Programme for new affordable housing;
  £250 million for the Starter Home Initiative;
  £138 million over three years to ensure the effective implementation of support services for the vulnerable through our Supporting People programme;
  £137 million for a new Safer Communities Supported Housing Fund;
  £11 million to fund pilot lettings schemes that promote customer choice for tenants in social housing;
  £17 million for the improvement of Gypsy sites; and
  increases in funding for disabled facilities grants and home improvements.

  Our housing strategy sets a national framework. It promotes local implementation, recognising diversity and varying conditions. Local authorities have a key role to play as strategic housing bodies serving their communities and delivering the policies that ensure the social, economic and environmental well-being of their areas.

  We have set out in our statement a comprehensive approach to housing policy. We must now move forward to implement these policies. I look forward to working with our partners in the public, private and voluntary sectors to ensure that everyone has the opportunity of a decent home.

  Endangered Species
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what was the percentage change in UK populations of species now deemed to be endangered of(a) mammals, (b) birds, (c) amphibians, (d) reptiles and (e) fish over the last 20 years; and if he will make a statement. [142119]

  Mr. Mullin
  The UK Biodiversity Action Plan identifies 575 priority species for conservation action. The available evidence indicates that focused initiatives for endangered species, like the UK Biodiversity Action Plan, are being effective in halting the declines of endangered species through targeted conservation action, although the evidence suggests that there remains a general decline in UK biodiversity.

  Monitoring of UK flora and fauna is not comprehensive and precise figures for percentage change of populations of particular species are not always available. Comprehensive monitoring programmes are often put in place only when a species decline is significant enough to warrant conservation action to preserve that species. The National Biodiversity Network, for which my Department has provided financial support, will provide the mechanism to enable such ecological information to become more accessible.
  157W
  (a)Mammals

  Few detailed data on population change are available for mammals, although my Department, with its scientific advisers the Joint Nature Conservation Committee, is currently undertaking work to develop an integrated monitoring system for mammals. By way of illustration, successive surveys of England indicate a partial recovery of the otter population, although in contrast the water vole has undergone a severe population crash.

  (b)Birds

  The UK's endangered birds species have experienced mixed fortunes in recent decades. A recently calculated index of the populations of rare breeding birds has more than doubled since 1970, reflecting the success of targeted conservation action on species such as the red kite, cirl bunting and stone curlew, taken by both statutory and non-government organisations. By contrast, an index composed of the populations trends of 20 farmland bird species has declined by 40 per cent. since the mid-1970s. The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has recently adopted a target to reverse the decline in farmland birds within its Public Service Agreement.

  (c) Amphibians and(d)reptiles

  Evidence indicates varying levels of decline among all the UK's amphibians and reptiles, although precise figures for declines for widespread species are not available. The main causes have been the loss of, damage to and fragmentation of habitats. For scarce species with restricted ranges, more detailed data are available where positive conservation measures have been put in place and these data indicate that these measures are being effective in halting decline. English Nature is currently engaged in projects with partner organisations to address the need for monitoring schemes so that a more quantitative assessment of status can be undertaken.

  (e)Fish

  Freshwater fish populations are under threat from a wide range of sources, although few species have good national records of population status. As an example, the white-clawed crayfish has suffered heavily from the particular problem of crayfish plague, a disease introduced by non-native crayfish species used in aquaculture.

  Incinerator Emissions
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what nano-particle analysis has been carried out on incinerator emissions; and if he will make a statement. [142125]

  Mr. Hill
  None. Nano-particles have only recently been identified as a possible problem and are in their early stages of research.

  Traffic Accidents
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many(a) fatal and (b) other road traffic accidents were caused in the last year for which figures are available by vehicles travelling in excess of 100 mph; and how many individuals died as a result. [142106]

  Mr. Hill
  At the scene of a road accident it is very difficult to determine the speeds at which each of the vehicles involved were travelling. In addition to this, drivers or riders of vehicles involved in accidents are 158W
  unlikely to be honest about how fast they were actually travelling, especially if they were travelling at speeds in excess of 100 mph.

  For this reason, the data requested are unavailable.

  Railways
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many(a) derailments, (b) signals passed at danger and (c) tunnel collapses were reported in each month from September to December for (i) 1998, (ii) 1999 and (iii) 2000. [141499]

  Mr. Hill
  The figures requested are shown in the tables based on information supplied to the Health and Safety Executive's HM Railway Inspectorate (HMRI) by railway operators. The figures relate to the national railway network whose infrastructure is controlled by Rai1track. The figures relating to tunnel collapses are based on HMRI classification of failures of tunnels:

  (a) Derailments

  1998

  1999

  2000

  September

  5

  8

  10

  October

  4

  8

  8

  November

  7

  4

  4

  December

  6

  3

  1—

  Total

  22

  23

  22

  (b) Signals passed at danger

  1998

  1999

  2000

  September

  61

  54

  46

  October

  78

  70

  53

  November

  76

  54

  1—

  December

  35

  23

  1—

  Total

  250

  201

  99

  1 Figures currently under compilation

  (c) Tunnel failures

  1998

  1999

  2000

  September

  0

  2

  1

  October

  0

  2

  0

  November

  0

  1

  0

  December

  1

  2

  1—

  Total

  1

  7

  1

  Flood Prevention
  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans his Department has for assisting local authorities with flood prevention; and if he will make a statement. [142065]

  Mr. Morley
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Land Drainage Act 1991 gives local authorities permissive powers to undertake flood defence works on ordinary watercourses that are not within the district of an internal drainage board. Under these powers local authorities may build and maintain flood defences and their expenditure on such works is recognised in Standard Spending Assessments. The Ministry offer grant aid to capital flood defence works which satisfy engineering,

  159W
  environmental and economic criteria, and achieve the appropriate priority score. Local authorities will also be able to apply for grant aid for accelerated river flood defence works.

  Local authorities have separate responsibilities for dealing with flooding emergencies. For this work they may be eligible for re-imbursement under the Bellwin rules that are administered by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions.

DEFENCE

  Navy
  Mr. Ivan Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on personnel management in the naval service. [142859]

  Mr. Spellar
  We are considering improved approaches to the current arrangements for the management of people in the Royal Navy and Royal Marines. The aim of these changes, which have been instigated by the Navy Board, is to alleviate overstretch by lessening the impact on the individual of a high operational tempo and to reduce the turbulence which existing arrangements may produce. The benefits should include greater stability for members of the Naval Service and their families, both in geographical terms and in the predictability of their employment, and hence enable them to plan their lives with greater certainty.

  The Project is known as TOPMAST (Tomorrow's Personnel Management System). A basic concept has been outlined and will now be further developed. The concept is designed to provide the individual with quality sea time and properly managed time ashore, determined by reference to the individual rather than to the ship or unit, as under present arrangements.

  TOPMAST will apply to all members of the Royal Navy and Royal Marines and is designed to enhance their quality of life while bringing greater flexibility to their employment. It is planned that these improvements will be implemented in phases, beginning to take effect from as early as late 2001, subject to the outcome of the next phase of development.

  Ex-service Personnel
  Ms Kelly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assistance his Department offers to current service personnel to assist their reintegration into civilian life; what assessment has been undertaken on the impact of this assistance; and what is the annual cost of providing this assistance. [142034]

  Mr. Spellar
  Resettlement and career transition services for those leaving the regular armed forces are core elements of the Armed Forces Overarching Personnel Strategy.

  The range of services which currently exist to assist service personnel with the process of re-entering civilian life includes housing and finance briefings, workshops, seminars, relevant training and job finding. The range of activities and the amount of time available to individuals to undertake them depends on length of time served in the regular armed forces. The most comprehensive assistance
  160W
  is available to those with at least five years reckonable service, although those who are medically discharged at any time after the completion of basic training are also eligible for the full service. This assistance is provided in the form of a partnership between my Department and Coutts Consulting Group, and is known as the Career Transition Partnership (CTP). The CTP also offers a job-finding service for those who have at least three years of reckonable service. A lesser level of support is available to those who have served less than three years in the armed forces. The CTP, which commenced operations on 12 October 1998, has its own dedicated website, www.ctp.org.uk.

  A Veterans Advice Unit also exists and provides a single point of contact for ex-service personnel seeking advice on where to obtain expert help on individual issues.

  The main assessment of the impact of resettlement assistance has been carried out against the CTP contract. Over the period from contract inception to March 2000, the CTP achieved a success rate of 54 per cent. of service leavers achieving employment immediately on discharge, with 93 per cent. achieving employment within six months of discharge. From the 15,000 or so discharged service leavers over the same period, complaints about the quality of service were running at a rate of less than 1 per cent.

  The total cost of MOD's resettlement support includes staff costs of personnel involved in resettlement matters; the cost of allowing service personnel to attend resettlement related events, including their Individual Resettlement Training Grants and associated travel and subsistence costs; the cost of the CTP contract with Coutts Consulting Group; the costs of running the MOD establishments where CTP services are offered; and the costs of providing the contractor, under Government Owned, Contractor Operated arrangements, with equipment to enable him to run certain types of training course.

  Much of this cost is not held centrally and could be provided only at • disproportionate cost. The largest element of the cost, that of the CTP contract with Coutts Consulting Group, has cost in the region of£13 million (VAT inclusive), over the period from October 1998 to November 2000, but this does not represent the true cost to the Department of its resettlement activities.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what arrangements exist to monitor the Career Transition Partnership; and if he will make a statement on its performance in securing civilian employment. [142151]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Career Transition Partnership (CTP) is a partnership between the Ministry of Defence and Coutts Consulting Group, a commercial company with considerable expertise in Resettlement and Outplacement matters. The purpose of the CTP is to assist those leaving the armed forces to make a successful transition to civilian employment when their careers have come to an end. Resettlement and career transition services for those leaving the regular armed forces are core elements of the Armed Forces Overarching Personnel Strategy.

  To monitor the performance of the partnership, MOD established a dedicated team at the outset of the contract in October 1998. The team has the express purpose of

  161W
  monitoring the activities of the contractor, to ensure that he meets the performance criteria laid down in the contract.

  Over the period from contract inception to March 2000, the CTP has achieved a success rate of 54 per cent. of service leavers achieving employment immediately on discharge, with 93 per cent. achieving employment within six months of discharge.

  University Hospital Birmingham
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much investment his Department proposes to make at University Hospital Birmingham; and what facilities of his Department are planned to be developed there. [141381]

  Dr. Moonie
  We are currently in the process of establishing the new Centre for Defence Medicine (CDM), which will have important academic, teaching, and clinical functions, in partnership with University Hospital Birmingham (UHB) NHS Trust and others. Some£1 million is being spent on the refurbishment of a building at UHB's Selly Oak Hospital to provide headquarters accommodation for the CDM, but apart from this the centre will use existing facilities belonging to the trust and its academic and clinical partner. In the long-term it is intended that it will also use infrastructure constructed as part of UHB's planned Private Finance Initiative hospital development. This will involve no direct investment by the Ministry of Defence.

  It is possible, but not yet certain, that the MOD will need to invest in new domestic accommodation for personnel at the CDM, but this would not involve UHB. As it might be the subject of contractual negotiations, I am withholding our internal estimate of costs under exemption 7 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Selly Oak Hospital
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many of his Department's medical staff are working at Selly Oak Hospital; and for what reason. [141380]

  Dr. Moonie
  As at 7 December 2000, the numbers of Defence Medical Services personnel serving at the Selly Oak Hospital and their roles are as follows:Centre for Defence Medicine (CDM)

  Head of CDM Implementation Team

  CDM Project Manager1

  Assistant Director Nursing and Services

  Officer Commanding Support Unit1

  Patient Services Officer

  1 Medical secretarial/administrative personnel

  Clinical Staff

  Consultant Ophthalmologist

  7 x A&E Nurses.

  In addition, a member of the Adjutant General's Corps is serving as Chief Clerk at the CDM. A Specialist Registrar in Anaesthetics is also serving at the Queen Elizabeth Hospital (which is part of the University Hospital Birmingham NHS Trust) on a routine placement not directly connected with the CDM.

  Official Publications
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list each new publication issued by his Department since 1997 and the total cost to the Department of each publication. [141472]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 11 December 2000]: My Department produces a huge range of publications for both internal and external purposes. No central record is kept of these and it would not be possible to list each new publication, and the total costs to the Department, without incurring disproportionate costs.

  However, we do have central records of the publications produced by our central corporate communications division and its predecessors, which is responsible for most corporate and policy publications. From the information available, the following main publications have been produced since financial year 1997–98.

  Publication

  £

  Financial year 1997–98

  Britain's Defence Booklet

  728,000

  Focus Internal Newspaper

  204,930

  Sanctuary Conservation Booklet

  22,297

  Permanent Joint HQ Publication

  7,955

  MOD Organisational Booklet

  4,000

  Conservation Brochure

  11,258

  Departmental Performance Report

  1—

  Financial year 1998–99

  Strategic Defence Review (CMD 999)

  1—

  Departmental Performance Report

  1—

  Defence Booklets

  55,988

  Defence Annual Report

  19,051

  Sanctuary Conservation Booklet

  24,194

  Defence Factsheets

  11,991

  Focus Internal Newspaper

  167,791

  Financial year 1999–2000

  Defence White Paper (CMD 4446)

  1—

  Defence Annual Report and Mission Booklets

  17,514

  Defence Booklets

  25,373

  Defence Factsheets (series of 28)

  47,868

  Factsheets (Welsh Language)

  8,439

  Large text/Braille/audio material

  24,475

  Sanctuary

  21,920

  Focus Internal Newspaper

  174,329

  Departmental Performance Report

  1—

  Financial year 2000–01

  MOD Factsheets (series of 33)

  22,782

  Factsheets (Welsh Language)

  10,480

  Corporate Booklets

  32,364

  Kosovo Lessons From the Crisis (CMD 4724)

  1—

  Departmental Performance Report

  1—

  Focus Internal Newspaper

  103,918

  Sanctuary

  19,092

  1 Costs borne by Stationery Office

  Kursk
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if his Department's civilian Salvage and Mooring Organisation has the experience, resources, and training to carry out the Kursk operation; what expertise RN personnel have regarding the deep-water intervention activity necessary for this operation; and if he will make a statement. [142163]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Ministry of Defence's Salvage and Mooring Organisation would not have the lead on a rescue attempt similar to that undertaken for the Kursk. Instead
  163W
  such an attempt would fall to our Submarine and Rescue Service based on the LR5 manned submersible and the Scorpio remotely operated vehicle. As I explained to the hon. Member in written correspondence, our Submarine and Rescue System has the capability to deal with rescue from depths of 400m and to angles of up to 60 degrees. I also refer the hon. Member to the answers I gave him on 20 November 2000, Official Report, columns 7–8W and on 24 November 2000, Official Report, columns 336–37W.

  Dog Training
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what his policy is on the use of electric shock-collars in dog training. [142122]

  Dr. Moonie
  No use is made of electric shock-collars in any dog training carried out by the Ministry of Defence.

  Medical Staff
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many doctors, nurses and other medical staff have been posted away from the Royal Hospital Haslar to take up overseas posts in the last three months; and what proportion this represents of all such medical overseas postings in the period. [141382]

  Dr. Moonie
  In the three months ended 30 November 2000, 56 Defence Medical Services personnel from the Royal Hospital Haslar and the four Ministry of Defence Hospital Units were deployed overseas on military operations. Of the 56 personnel, 27 were deployed from the Royal Hospital Haslar. In addition, 18 Regular personnel from other units and volunteer Reservists were similarly deployed.

  In the same period, 14 Service medical personnel from Haslar and the four Ministry of Defence Hospital Units took up long term postings overseas, six of whom were from the Royal Hospital Haslar.

  Chemical Weapons
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he plans to subject the report of the zinc cadmium sulphide trials by Professor Peter Lachmann published in March this year to peer review by other scientists. [142412]

  Dr. Moonie
  I understand that Professor Lachmann and his colleagues plan to arrange publication and peer review of a scientific paper based on their report.

  Porton Down Volunteers
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if the advice from the Medical Research Council on an independent epidemiological study of Porton Down volunteers will be made public once that advice has been received; [142419]

  (2) if he will place in the Library a copy of the letter from the Ministry of Defence to the Medical Research Council seeking advice on an independent epidemiological study on Porton Down volunteers. [142418]

  Dr. Moonie
  I have placed a copy of my Department's letter to the Medical Research Council (MRC) in the Library of the House. Some text has been removed under the Code of Practice on Access to Government
  164W
  Information, Exemptions 11, 12 and 14. The MRC's advice, which is still awaited, will form the basis for decisions which my Department will make public in due course.

  Staffordshire Regiment
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the Strategic Defence Review Learning Forces initiative and the Staffordshire Regiment. [142150]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Strategic Defence Review (SDR) included a commitment to develop a learning culture in the armed forces through the Learning Forces Initiative (LFI). This initiative encourages learning and aims to furnish all Service personnel with the skills they need to make the best possible contribution during their Service careers and equip them to return to civilian life in due course. Soldiers of the Staffordshire Regiment, like all other Service personnel, are able to take advantage of these improved opportunities for learning. The Staffordshire Regiment is based in Tidworth which houses one of the four pilot Army Learning Centres where soldiers will have on-line access to a wide range of learning opportunities.

CABINET OFFICE

  Drugs
  Caroline Flint
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what recommendations she has made about developing drug detoxification strategies at regional level. [142068]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  As a result of the Government's forward expenditure plans spending on treatment services, including those providing detoxification, will rise from£234 million this year to£401 million in 2003–04. The National Treatment Agency, which will be established from April 2001, will be responsible for a pooled budget to expand drug treatment provision and for ensuring the delivery of high quality services across the country. It will ensure that those requiring treatment are able to access services regardless of their route of referral.

  The Government are committed to reducing long waiting times for drug treatment services and to bringing the standards of all up to the standards of the best.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Girls in Sport
  Caroline Flint
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what targets he has for increasing participation of girls in sport. [142058]

  Kate Hoey
  My Department's Public Service Agreement includes a target to raise significantly, year on year, the average time spent on sport and physical activity of all those aged six to 16. Sport England has agreed to include in its Funding Agreement with the Department a target to increase women's regular participation in sport from 24 per cent. in 1996 to 30 per cent. in 2002.

  Conference League Football Clubs
  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assistance his Department(a) has given to Conference League football clubs to establish youth development programmes and (b) plans to give to Conference League football clubs to establish full-time youth academies. [141950]

  Kate Hoey
  Nationwide clubs are eligible to apply to the Football Foundation for funding for community/education initiatives and grass roots projects which may benefit the wider community.

  I have met with the Nationwide Conference to discuss this issue and fully support their wish to establish youth development programmes and youth academies.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Judges (Car Hire)
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will give a breakdown of the costs of car hire for each of the last three years for each judges' lodgings; and if he will make a statement. [142112]

  Jane Kennedy
  The information requested is contained in the table.

  Cost of car hire

  £

  No

  Lodgings name

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  1

  Birmingham

  49,973

  47,597

  50,641

  2

  Bristol

  37,230

  36,952

  32,632

  3

  Caernarfon

  4,350

  1,689

  1,468

  4

  Cardiff

  35,385

  32,642

  33,151

  5

  Carlisle

  8,128

  4,058

  7,545

  6

  Chelmsford

  2,013

  774

  2,474

  7

  Chester

  22,373

  20,587

  23,249

  8

  Exeter

  10,521

  12,245

  6,436

  9

  Leeds

  37,870

  30,806

  40,208

  10

  Leicester

  7,720

  3,820

  4,468

  11

  Lewes

  13,417

  21,360

  12,037

  12

  Lincoln

  4,890

  4,755

  3,467

  13

  Liverpool

  26,747

  34,774

  38,430

  14

  Maidstone

  14,111

  13,141

  9,420

  15

  Manchester

  52,134

  45,762

  43,110

  16

  Mold

  607

  779

  635

  17

  Northampton

  1,687

  3,320

  2,300

  18

  Norwich

  8,636

  8,358

  4,515

  19

  Nottingham

  31,288

  42,776

  33,860

  20

  Oxford

  3,518

  7,864

  5,305

  21

  Plawsworth

  37,093

  29,821

  41,644

  22

  Plymouth

  2,505

  1,269

  1,989

  23

  Preston

  30,886

  25,333

  24,561

  24

  Reading

  16,939

  15,738

  17,295

  25

  Sheffield

  26,382

  23,374

  21,292

  26

  St. Albans

  13,882

  14,109

  20,729

  27

  Stafford

  3,385

  6,266

  22,469

  28

  Swansea

  17,646

  12,645

  22,605

  29

  Truro

  1,930

  2,304

  4,005

  30

  Warwick

  194

  264

  860

  31

  Winchester

  22,023

  18,993

  20,849

  32

  Winchester

  4,922

  2,902

  3,417

  Total

  550,385

  527,077

  557,066

  Divorce (Religious Marriages) Bill
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has to reintroduce the Divorce (Religious Marriages) Bill; and if he will make a statement. [141330]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Government have no plans to introduce such a Bill at present.

  Royal Records
  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has to release the remaining records relating to King Edward VIII. [141634]

  Mr. Lock
  The public records relating to King Edward VIII that have not been released are closed for up to 100 years but this closure period is kept under constant review.

  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has to decrease the length of time royal records remain closed to the public. [141635]

  Mr. Lock
  The Open Government White Paper (July 1993), under which access to public records relating to the royal family is determined, provides that such records are treated in the same way as all other records and only closed for longer than 30 years if they fall into one of the three criteria governing closure (Para. 9.2). Guidance on the length of time that royal records remain closed to the public is under review in the light of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

  Legal Aid
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement on the procedures for challenging abuse of public funds through the maladministration of legal aid. [141641]

  Mr. Lock
  If a litigant believes that their opponent should not have been granted public funding, they can make representations to the Legal Services Commission. If the Commission agrees that, in the light of new information, the case no longer meets the qualifying criteria, it will move to discharge or revoke the certificate. The funded client has an opportunity to argue against the withdrawal of funding, and a formal right of appeal, after which the Commission's decision is final.

  If, after this, the unassisted party still believes that funding should not have been granted and that the Commission's decision was wrong, they can make a complaint to the Commission and ask for compensation. They can also (as with all public bodies) ask their MP to refer a complaint to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration. If the Commission or the Parliamentary Commissioner finds that there was maladministration, the Commission will offer compensation for any losses that are attributable to it.

  Auld Report
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when he expects Lord Justice Auld to submit his report on the criminal justice system. [141953]
  167W
  Jane Kennedy
  Lord Justice Auld is now drafting his final conclusions and hopes to bring the Review to a conclusion early in the new year.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Pre-1983 Maps
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food where his Department's pre-1983 maps of less favoured areas are held; and if they are accessible for examination by members of the public. [141303]

  Mr. Morley
  Prior to 1983, less-favoured areas were designated as those areas falling within or partly within the parishes listed in the annexe to Council Directive 75/268/EEC, as amended by Commission Decisions 76/685/EEC and 82/656/EEC. Copies of European legislation are available from local libraries.

  Seals
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what evidence his Department has procured on the possible correlation between seal populations and the decline in fish stocks. [142123]

  Mr. Morley
  Previous research funded by this Department and undertaken by the Sea Mammal Research Unit indicates that the bulk of seals' diet consists of juvenile fish. Given the high rates of natural mortality for these species, there is no evidence to indicate that seals are having a significant impact on particular stocks or the catches available to commercial fishermen.

  However, in view of renewed concerns, I have asked the SMRU to update this research. They are currently undertaking a project ending in September 2003, which focuses on grey seal diet in the North Sea. In addition, the Department is supporting a project to develop a computer model that will predict the impact of grey seals on fish stocks in the future. This work has just entered its final phase: results are expected in October 2002.

WALES

  Sea Fishing Industry
  Mr. Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with the Agriculture Secretary of the National Assembly on the future of the Welsh sea fishing industry. [142009]

  Mr. Hanson
  I meet the Agriculture Secretary on a regular basis and discuss a range of issues.

  Severn Bridge (Tolls)
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with the First Secretary with regard to making representations to the European Commission on the charging of VAT on Severn bridge tolls. [142012]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  Representations to the European Commission have not been raised during my discussion of this subject with my right hon. Friend the First Secretary.
  168W
  However, the hon. Gentleman will wish to be aware that Her Majesty's Customs and Excise is exploring options for a Government-supported scheme to offset the cost of VAT to motorist and business motorists.

  New Deal
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the cost-effectiveness of the New Deal for young people in Wales. [142013]

  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the cost-effectiveness of the New Deal for young people in Wales. [142016]

  Mr. Hanson
  The New Deal is working, performing better than most independent economists would have expected of an active labour market policy. We now have the lowest youth unemployment since July 1975 and the lowest unemployment for twenty years.

  The percentage fall in youth unemployment since May 1997 was 31 per cent. with a fall of 81 per cent. in long-term youth unemployment till September 2000. Figures show that there has been a 22 per cent. fall in youth unemployment with a fall of 73 per cent. since April 1998, attributable largely to the New Deal.

  Meat Labelling
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with the Welsh Agriculture Secretary about the labelling of meat which is imported from Europe but processed in Wales. [142014]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales meets regularly with the Welsh Agriculture Secretary to discuss a range of issues. The Assembly subscribes to the new compulsory system for the labelling of beef and beef products, recently agreed by the EC. This came into force on 1 September 2000 and states that labels must indicate the location where slaughter and cutting took place. As from 1 January 2002, it will also be compulsory to include the location where birth and rearing took place.

  Knowledge Economy
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what steps he is taking to support the knowledge economy in Wales. [142015]

  Mr. Hanson
  The Government have three overarching goals for the knowledge economy:

  To make the UK the best place in the world for e-commerce by 2002;

  To achieve universal access to the internet by 2005;

  To put all Government services online by 2005.

  This year, through the Budget, the Spending Review, and UK Online, the Government have already put in place a number of initiatives, in addition to existing measures, aimed at meeting these overarching goals. These measures will help to support the knowledge economy in Wales as well as the rest of the UK.

  Steel Industry
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the future of the steel industry in Wales. [142017]
  169W
  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The Government continue to work very closely with the Assembly, senior representatives of the steel industry and the Unions about the future of steel in the UK.

  Violent Crime
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what initiatives he is taking to reduce violence in Wales. [142018]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  None. It is for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to take initiatives to reduce violence. The Government's legislative programme for the coming session contains proposals, which will assist in the fight against violent crime.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what the current level is of violent crimes in(a) Welsh urban areas and (b) Welsh rural areas. [141912]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  Notifiable offences of violence against the person recorded in the 12 months ending March 2000, given by police force area, are in the table.

  Area

  Number

  Dyfed Powys

  5,519

  Gwent

  13,774

  South Wales

  12,890

  North Wales

  5,739

  Recorded crime in Wales fell by 2.5 per cent. overall in the same period, against a 3.8 per cent. increase in England and Wales as a whole.

  Pensioners (Security)
  Mr. Donald Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has held with relevant Cabinet colleagues about the implications of the Gracious Speech for the personal security of pensioners in Wales. [142019]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I meet with Cabinet colleagues regularly to discuss a wide range of issues.

  The Finance Bill will give effect to Budget measures. The pre-Budget Report announced an increase of£5 a week for single pensioners and£8 for married couple pensioners allowance from April 2001, and a further£3 for single pensioners and£4.80 for married couple pensioners from April 2002. It also announced that the Minimum Income Guarantee would increase to£92 a week in 2001–02 and£100 a week in 2002–03. The Winter Fuel Allowance has also been increased to£200. This is good news for all of Wales's 630,000 pensioners.

  The Criminal Justice and Police Bill will help to achieve one of the Government's main objectives—to reduce crime and to reduce the fear of crime. Fear of crime is particularly high among pensioners and they will benefit greatly from measures in the Bill which are designed to combat disorder, nuisance and intimidating or antisocial behaviour on our streets. Such measures include extra police powers to tackle disorder in public places and raising the upper age limit of child curfew schemes to 15 years.

  Gross Domestic Product
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on recent trends in the level of the gross domestic product of Wales. [142020]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  Recent figures show that there is a rising trend in the figures for gross domestic product (GDP) in Wales. GDP at basic prices is estimated to have risen from£25,860 million in 1995 to£29,027 million in 1998, an increase of 12 per cent. over the period.

  Police
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with the Home Secretary about extending police powers and increasing recruitment of police officers in Wales. [142022]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I meet the Home Secretary regularly to discuss a range of issues.

  The Criminal Justice and Police Bill, announced recently in the Queen's speech, will improve and modernise police powers and procedures. For example, the Bill will help police to combat disorder through the introduction of fixed penalty notices, it will give legal support to police removing material from premises for searching and it will give powers of arrest to police in cases of kerb-crawling and hit-and-run driving.

  The Home Secretary has announced that Welsh police forces will receive funding for an additional 286 police officers to be recruited in 2000–01 and 2001–02. Funding for additional recruitment will also be provided in 2002–03. In addition to payments direct to forces, National Police Training will receive funding to train new recruits to provincial forces.

  DARA (RAF St. Athan)
  Mr. John Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has made to the Secretary of State for Defence concerning the future of DARA at RAF St. Athan; and if he will make a statement. [142023]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I recently met my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces to discuss this issue. We will be issuing a joint statement shortly.

  Family Farms
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with the First Secretary on the impact of Government policies on small family farms in Wales. [142024]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I regularly discuss many aspects of agriculture in Wales with my right hon Friend the First Secretary. In recognition of the problems faced by Welsh farmers, the Action Plan for Farming package announced in March promised Wales£14.7 million to less favoured areas;£10.6 million agrimonetary compensation to dairy, beef and sheep farmers and£2 million to be spent on business advice throughout Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. This was in addition to HLCA budget increases in 1998–99 and 1999–2000 and several tranches of agrimonetary compensation for high value of pound, paid to beef and sheep sectors since the start of 1998, worth£227 million across the UK. These initiatives are in addition to those being pursued by the Assembly. The
  171W
  First Secretary has stressed that family farming needs to adapt in order to survive, grasping new opportunities underpinned by, for example, the Rural Development Plan, agrifood strategies and expansion of the Tir Gofal scheme.

  Manufacturing Industry
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had with the First Secretary concerning the prospects for manufacturing industry in Wales for 2001. [141913]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I regularly discuss a wide range of issues with the First Secretary including prospects for Manufacturing in Wales.

  This Government will continue to maintain the long-term economic stability Britain enjoys today, which will, in turn, allow businesses to invest and plan ahead with confidence.

  Special Educational Needs
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with the First Secretary about addressing the needs of children with special educational needs in Wales. [141914]

  Mr. Hanson
  There has been close co-operation between Whitehall colleagues and the National Assembly on addressing the needs of children in Wales with special educational needs. My right hon. Friend and I welcome the introduction of the Special Education Needs and Disability Bill, which will strengthen the rights of children with special educational needs and provide greater choice for their educational future.

  Census
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent representations he has received about the census in Wales. [141915]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I have received very few representations about this matter, with only around 10 letters in all, including those from Members of the House. The representations that I receive shows that people are more concerned with those issues which really matter: cutting crime, supporting pensioners and improving health care and education.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what further steps he has taken to enable people to indicate their national identity by way of a Welsh tick-box in the forthcoming census. [142006]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  There are a variety of opportunities for those of us who are Welsh to express our national identity in the forthcoming census. Anyone who writes in the ethnic group question that they are Welsh will be counted as such. Unlike a simple tick-box on the census form this will identify those Welsh people who are from black, Asian or other backgrounds. We are explicitly recognising the diversity of those who regard themselves as Welsh and who have other ethnic backgrounds.

  A question on the country of birth will enable people to indicate that they were born in Wales and respondents will be asked whether they can understand, speak, read or write in the Welsh language.

  Hunting
  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the impact of a ban on hunting with dogs on rural areas in Wales. [142005]

  Mr. Hanson
  I have made no specific assessment of the impact of a ban on hunting with dogs in rural areas. However, the hon. Gentleman knows that the Burns commission looked at this issue in some detail. We appreciate that there may be repercussions on rural areas and these will be taken into account during the passage of the Bill.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

  GM Crops
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell), representing the Church Commissioners, what research has been analysed to inform the policy of the Church Commissioners in respect of genetically modified crops. [141640]

  Mr. Stuart Bell
  The hon. Gentleman will know that the Church of England's Ethical Investment Advisory Group (EIAG) undertook an extensive inquiry earlier this year on behalf of the Church's central investing bodies, including the Church Commissioners, into the use of genetically modified organisms in agriculture. In doing so it consulted extensively with scientists and academics, including visits to research establishments. It studied papers prepared by English Nature, the RSPB and the Soil Association and a briefing issued by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Submissions from environmental groups, the Nuffield Council on Bioethics among others, were also considered. Full details of the research and consultation process are included in the EIAG's report "Genetically Modified Organisms: a Perspective and Reflection", published in April. A copy has been placed in the House of Commons Library.

  The EIAG has recommended to the Church Commissioners that while there is no theological objection to the genetic modification of seeds for use in agriculture crops, a precautionary principle should for the present be adopted over the use of land for this purpose, and the Commissioners have accepted that advice. The EIAG has called for a clear ethical framework for the practical application of the science, and tight and comprehensive regulation of research and testing that leads to a full evaluation of the benefits and risks. It will continue to monitor developments, working closely with regulators, industry and conservationists.

TREASURY

  Fuel Tax
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on discussions between his Department and the European Commission on greater harmonisation of indirect taxes on(a) petrol and (b) diesel within the EU. [141368]

  Mr. Timms
  Discussion of the draft Energy Products Directive is on-going.

  Aviation Fuel
  Caroline Flint
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent representations he has received in favour of taxation on aviation fuel. [142055]

  Mr. Timms
  At present, the taxation of aviation fuel is not permitted under EU law and long-standing international agreements. I have received a number of representations commenting on this situation, including a number querying the rationale for the exemption.

  Flexible Retirement
  Mr. Lilley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what progress has been made in the joint review by his Department and the Inland Revenue of flexible retirement; when he expects it to report; and if he will make a statement. [141320]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Discussions are currently taking place with representatives of pension schemes about this issue.

  Official Meetings
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will place his official diary for the month of July in the Library. [142487]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave him on 30 November 2000,Official Report, column 934W.

  Bereavement Allowance
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the number of beneficiaries and cost of extending the coverage of the Widow's Bereavement Allowance to men. [141496]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) on 16 November 2000,Official Report, column 762W.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many claims the Inland Revenue has received from men for the Widow's Bereavement Allowance since November 1999; and how many have received payment. [141495]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Inland Revenue does not maintain records for the number of claims it has received from men for the Widow's Bereavement Allowance. There is no entitlement in law for widowers to claim this allowance.

  Climate Change Levy
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he will publish agreements with business, including agreements with individual companies, groups of companies and sectors, relating to the climate change levy. [141467]

  Mr. Timms
  Energy intensive sectors exposed to international competition—as defined by the Pollution Prevention and Control Regulations—will be entitled to 80 per cent. rebate on the climate change levy in return for entering into Negotiated Agreements which will deliver 174W
  demanding reductions in their energy use. These agreements are entered into with the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions.

  Sickness Absence
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will place in the Library centrally collated incidences of sickness absence reported by managers in his Department for each month since they became available. [142509]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The latest published statistics on sickness absence were given in the report "Analysis of Sickness Absence in the Civil Service 1998" prepared by BMI Health Services Ltd.

  Business Case Studies (Euro)
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) how many businesses have requested copies of the free business case studies issued by the Euro Preparations Unit; [142270]

  (2) if he will place in the Library a copy of the free business case studies being offered to businesses by the Euro Preparations Unit; [142271]

  (3) how many unsolicited letters have been sent out by the Euro Preparations Unit offering free business case studies. [142272]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  I refer the hon. Member to the "Fourth report on Euro Preparations", copies of which have been deposited in the Library of the House.

  Banks (Financial Exclusion)
  Mr. Lilley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what sanctions will apply to banks who do not meet the marketing, accessibility and availability tests of their financial exclusion responsibility. [142248]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Government welcome banks' positive response to the challenge to set up basic bank accounts, and their constructive discussions with the Post Office to make them widely available.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Wild Mammals Protection Act
  Mr. Peter Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prosecutions there have been since the enactment of the Wild Mammals Protection Act 1996. [141633]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Available information, taken from the Home Office Court Proceedings Database, on the number of prosecutions there have been under the Wild Mammals (Protection) Act 1996, is given in the table.

  Number of persons prosecuted for offences under the Wild Mammals (Protection) Act 1996 England and Wales 1997–99

  Year

  Prosecutions

  1997

  7

  1998

  8

  1999

  1—

  1 Nil return

  National Asylum Seekers Support Scheme
  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many voucher-only applicants to the National Asylum Seekers Support Scheme are from(a) families with children under 18, (b) adults aged 18 to 24 and (c) adults aged 25 and over. [141644]

  Mrs. Roche
  As at the end of November 2000, 7401 families and 5,950 singles had applied for voucher-only support from the National Asylum Support Service.

  Information on the age of dependants and principal applicants is not available.

  1Figures are rounded to the nearest 10

  Child Asylum Seekers
  Ms Kelly
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the compatibility of the treatment of child asylum seekers with the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. [142045]

  Mrs. Roche
  In ratifying the Convention the United Kingdom entered a reservation in respect of immigration law. Decisions on the entry and stay of children are made on the basis of our domestic law and our international obligations to refugees. We take the view that our treatment of child asylum seekers is entirely consistent with the broad thrust of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. In particular, we are satisfied that the comprehensive provision in United Kingdom law for the care and protection of children applies in full to children who have been recognised as refugees in this country and to those who have sought asylum here but whose claims have not yet been determined.

  Anti-social Behaviour Orders
  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many anti-social behaviour orders have been issued since 1999 in(a) England and Wales, (b) the Greater London area and (c) the Royal Borough of Kingston. [141629]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Over 140 orders have now been granted in England and Wales. At least 10 of these have been made in the Greater London area. I understand that no orders have been granted in the Royal Borough of Kingston.

  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the average cost of issuing an anti-social behaviour order. [141630]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  As I said in my reply to the hon. Member on 13 November 2000,Official Report, column 531W, I cannot yet say what the average cost of issuing an order is. We will be undertaking a review into the operation and effectiveness of anti-social behaviour orders in the new year. Once the results of the review have been published, we should have a clearer picture of the cost of seeking an order.

  Holocaust Memorial Day
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the progress of the preparations for Holocaust Memorial Day 2001. [141327]
  176W
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Preparations are well in hand.

  A Home Office-led Steering Group has been developing guidance and plans since January when my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, announced the establishment of Holocaust Memorial day. The Steering Group includes representatives from a wide range of Government Departments and non-government departments (NGOs).

  On 23 October the Local Government Association sent guidance to local authorities on ways they can mark the day, encouraging them to involve local communities and groups. This guidance was produced by a working group chaired by the Acting Chief Executive of the London Borough of Barnet and involved a number of representatives of NGOs with experience and expertise in Holocaust education and remembrance. These included the Board of Deputies of British jews, Beth Shalom Memorial Centre, Anne Frank Educational Trust, Holocaust Educational Trust and Pink Triangle Coalition. The guidance has also been distributed to a wide range of voluntary and community groups through the Commission for Race Equality, the National Association of Councils for Voluntary Service, Stonewall, the Board of Deputies of British Jews, and the Interfaith Network. This effort is being reinforced by seminars for local authority chief officers being run jointly by the Local Government Association and Beth Shalom Memorial Centre. Local authorities have been asked to put details of activities in their areas onto the dedicated website www.holocaustmemorialday.gov.uk.

  On 9 November 2000, the Minister for Schools, the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, the hon. Member for Redditch (Jacqui Smith), launched a new Holocaust education resource pack for use by schools and others in the week leading up to Holocaust Memorial Day. An editorial team from NGOs with experience and expertise in Holocaust education, research and remembrance produced the education Pack, which was quality assured by Department for Education and Employment. These were the Board of Deputies of British Jews, Holocaust Educational Trust, Pink Triangle Coalition, Anne Frank Educational Trust, London Jewish Cultural Centre, the Wiener Library, Southampton University and Ben Helfgott, himself a Holocaust survivor, from the Yad Vashem Committee. Nearly 30,000 packs have already been issued.

  A national ceremony will be held in London on the evening of Saturday 27 January and will be attended by a wide audience including senior public figures, community representatives and students. The event is being produced and televised live by the BBC guided by the Steering Group.

  I would like to encourage all Members of Parliament to support and encourage activities in their constituencies to mark the first United Kingdom Holocaust Memorial Day. The day is relevant to all of us. Its focus is on learning the lessons of the Holocaust and other more recent atrocities that raise similar issues.

  A key aim of the day is to promote a democratic and tolerant society that respects and celebrates diversity and is free of the evils of prejudice. This is reflected in all of the related guidance and plans to mark Holocaust Memorial Day on 27 January.

  Dog Breed Bans (Germany)
  Jane Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the action of the German Government in respect of banning certain breeds of dog. [141324]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Government's view is that action by the authorities of other countries, concerning dogs within their own borders, is entirely a matter for them. We have therefore made no assessment of steps taken in Germany as regards certain breeds of dogs.

  The German Government has pressed for European Union (EU) legislation on the subject of dangerous dogs, but following related discussion at a meeting last September of the European Union's Judicial Home Affairs Council, it seems unlikely that the matter will progress.

  The United Kingdom Government are opposed to European Union legislation on this subject. We also consider that current United Kingdom law, in the form of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 (as amended in 1997), is adequate for present and future control needs in this country.

  Criminal Records Bureau
  Mr. Grogan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what would be the cost of waiving the charges of the Criminal Records Bureau for checks requested by voluntary sector organisations. [141522]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) on 11 December 2000,Official Report, column 60W.

  Mr. Grogan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress he has made in carrying out a regulatory impact assessment in respect of the fees to be charged by the Criminal Records Bureau, with particular reference to the voluntary sector. [141523]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) on 11 December 2000,Official Report, column 60W.

  Ex-servicemen (Convictions)
  Ms Kelly
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans his Department has to identify the number of ex-servicemen who have been convicted of a criminal offence. [142140]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  There are no plans to identify the number of ex-servicemen who have been convicted of a criminal offence.

  Metropolitan Police (Thames Division)
  Mr. Pond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) powered patrol and supervisory craft, (b) personnel broken down by rank, (c) other staff, (d) operational marine stations and (e) specialist divers of the Thames Division of the Metropolitan police there were in each of the years 1980, 1989 and 2000. [141365]
  178W
  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis has provided the information. The force's records for 1980 are incomplete and therefore the information provided is for 1989 and 2000.

  (i)1989

  There were 21 patrol boats and two supervision launches. The staffing in 1989 was as follows:

  Number

  Police officers

  Superintendent

  1

  Chief Inspector

  1

  Inspectors

  8

  Sergeants

  22

  Constables

  114

  Civilian staff and other staff

  Civilian support staff

  6

  Garage staff (including boatyard)

  12

  Special constables

  29

  In 1989, Thames Division operated from the following locations: Barnes, Hampton, Moorings and Shepperton, Wapping and Waterloo Pier.Metropolitan police service records in 1989 did not differentiate between divers and other specially employed officers. However, force duty records suggest there were nine officers employed as divers.

  (ii)2000

  There were 11 patrol boats and three supervision launches. The staffing in 2000 was as follows:

  Number

  Police officers

  Chief Inspector

  1

  Inspectors

  5

  Sergeants

  14

  Constables

  67

  Civilian staff and other staff

  Civilian support staff

  6

  Special constables

  11

  In 2000, the Marine Support Unit operated from Wapping with satellite unstaffed bases at Waterloo Pier and Richmond.

  There were nine divers (one sergeant and eight constables).

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much his Department spent on support for asylum seekers, including unaccompanied minors, in(a) 1996–97, (b) 1997–98, (c) 1998–99, (d) 1999–2000 and (e) the period since 1 April. [142445]

  Mrs. Roche
  [holding answer 12 December 2000]: The Home Department assumed responsibility for asylum support costs on 1 April 1999 as a result of the comprehensive spending review. These costs were previously the responsibility of the Department of Social Security and Department of Health. Their combined direct expenditure for supporting asylum seekers in 1996–97

  179W
  was£413 million, in 1997–98 was£375 million and in 1998–99 was£475 million. These figures include costs for supporting unaccompanied asylum seeking children.

  The comparable costs in 1999–2000 to the Home Office budget of supporting asylum seekers in the United Kingdom was£537 million. The Department of Health incurred an additional cost of£52 million for supporting unaccompanied asylum seeking children, bringing the total costs in 1999–2000 for supporting asylum seekers to£590 million.

  Expenditure by the Immigration and Nationality Directorate for asylum support from 1 April 2000 to 30 November 2000 was£463 million. This figure does not include costs for supporting unaccompanied asylum seeking children as the grant exercise for 2000–01 will be conducted later in the year.

  Electoral Commissioners
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the Electoral Commissioners are to be appointed; and if he will make a statement. [141388]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We intend to table a motion for an Address to be presented to Her Majesty, as required by section 3(1) of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, soon.

  Hare Coursing
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to introduce a closed season for(a) hare coursing and (b) shooting; and if he will make a statement. [141748]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Hunting Bill, which received its First Reading on 7 December 2000, contains three options dealing with the issue of hunting with dogs in England and Wales. The option at schedule 3 of the Bill would provide for a ban on hare coursing.

  There are no current plans for a close season for hare coursing should Parliament not introduce a ban, though the activity as regulated by the National Coursing Club should not take place for most of the period between March and August each year.

  The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR) inform me that a Biodiversity Action Plan for the Brown Hare was set up with the objective of maintaining and expanding existing populations. It does not, however, recommend introducing a close season for shooting hares (though there are restrictions on that under the Ground Game Act 1880), and there are currently no plans to bring in such a measure.

  Close seasons for shooting a number of other species of wildlife already exist in the Game Act 1831 and the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. These are for conservation purposes, to allow numbers to recover and to ensure, in accordance with the European Community Wild Birds Directive, that hunting does not occur during rearing seasons.

  Vehicle-related Crime
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many vehicle-related crimes occurred in Sussex in each year since 1979. [142137]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The number of thefts of vehicles and thefts from vehicles are given in the table.

  Recorded crimes—Sussex

  Year

  Theft of vehicle

  Theft from vehicle

  1979

  3,685

  4,144

  1980

  3,864

  4,302

  1981

  3,717

  5,162

  1982

  4,157

  7,278

  1983

  3,729

  7,363

  1984

  4,686

  7,716

  1985

  5,009

  8,238

  1986

  5,290

  8,870

  1987

  5,262

  9,167

  1988

  5,497

  10,065

  1989

  6,226

  11,051

  1990

  7,210

  15,465

  1991

  9,251

  21,020

  1992

  9,006

  22,981

  1993

  7,664

  20,703

  1994

  6,701

  18,286

  1995

  6,763

  19,263

  1996

  7,424

  20,217

  1997

  6,979

  19,188

  1998–991

  7,076

  18,258

  1999–20001

  7,721

  17,419

  1 Year ending March

  Firearms and Knives
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many offences involving(a) firearms and (b) knives there were in Sussex in each year since 1979. [142110]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The number of offences involving knives is not collected centrally. The number of firearms offences in Sussex for the years requested is given as follows, and is the total for all firearms, including air weapons.

  Year

  Number

  1979

  74

  1980

  63

  1981

  91

  1982

  63

  1983

  42

  1984

  65

  1985

  74

  1986

  74

  1987

  92

  1988

  103

  1989

  165

  1990

  193

  1991

  184

  1992

  198

  1993

  208

  1994

  195

  1995

  189

  1996

  177

  1997

  218

  1998–991

  315

  1999–20001

  377

  1 Year ending March. There was a change in counting rules for recorded crime on 1 April 1998, which increased the overall number of offences recorded, of which firearms offences are a subset

  181W
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to hold(a) a firearms and (b) a knife amnesty. [142111]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  We are in favour in principle of periodic firearms amnesties, although the details and timing would need to be considered carefully in consultation with the police service and the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS). A formal amnesty would raise a number of legal and practical issues which would need to be resolved in advance.

  As regards an amnesty for knives, we are aware of the existence of some schemes which have apparently been successful locally in reducing the incidence of knife crime. However, knives are not subject to licensing or similar controls, and there are no current plans to introduce a national knives amnesty in this country. It will be for individual police forces and other interested parties to decide whether to have a knives amnesty scheme or not in their location.

  Speeding Penalties
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to alter the penalties applicable to drivers driving at speeds in excess of 100 mph. [142107]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The penalties for speeding and other road traffic offences are currently under review. The Government hope to publish a consultation document, setting out the proposals of the review, very shortly.

  Replica Guns
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the use of replica guns in perpetrating criminal activity; what plans he has to introduce measures requiring replica guns to be obviously different from real guns; and if he will make a statement. [142109]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  In the light of police concern about the use of replica firearms in robbery and other crimes, we have recently accepted in principle the recommendations of the Home Affairs Select Committee and the Firearms Consultative Committee that there should be restrictions on the ready availability of imitation weapons and their possession in a public place. We will wish to explore carefully what further steps might be taken to control these items.

  HGVs
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many convictions for tampering with speed limiters on heavy goods vehicles there have been in the last year for which figures are available. [142506]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Information obtained from the Vehicle Inspectorate (an executive agency of the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions) shows that there were 46 convictions for interfering with speed limiters on heavy goods vehicles in England and Wales in the financial year 1999–2000.

  Drug Treatment
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many people have successfully 182W
  completed treatment under a drug treatment and testing order in each of the last 10 years; and what is the estimated cost of each successful participant; [142213]

  (2) how many people have undergone a drug treatment and testing order in each of the last 10 years; and how many have refused to comply in each of the last 10 years. [142214]

  Mr. Boateng
  The drug treatment and testing order was only rolled out to all courts in England and Wales from 1 October. It had previously been piloted between 1 October 1998 and 31 March 2000 in three areas: Croydon, Gloucestershire and Liverpool. By the end of the pilots 31 offenders had successfully completed their orders or were nearing completion.

  It is estimated that on average an order costs approximately£6,000.

  Statistics on orders made, breach and revocation in each of the pilot areas are given in the table.

  DTTO pilot scheme1

  Area

  Orders made

  Orders breached

  Orders revoked

  Percentage of orders revoked

  Croydon

  42

  28

  17

  40

  Gloucestershire

  100

  63

  60

  60

  Liverpool

  68

  29

  19

  28

  Total

  210

  120

  96

  46

  1 Enforcement process: figures until 31 March 2000 (from Final Evaluation Report)

  Note

  In all cases, the orders revoked have also been the subject of breach and are included in both figures

  Electoral Register
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the standard data format for the supply of copies of the electoral register to(a) those entitled to receive them free of charge in electronic form and (b) others is to be; and if he will make a statement. [141475]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Regulations C22 to C24 of the draft Representation of the People (England and Wales) Regulations 2000 (which were published for consultation on 8 November) provide for the supply of copies of the electoral register to specified persons, or the sale of such copies, either in printed or data form. Regulation C25 of the draft Regulations specifies that, subject to any direction of the Secretary of State under section 52(1) of the Representation of the People Act 1983 (directions as to discharge of registration duties), any duty on the registration officer to supply data under regulations C22 to C24 imposes only a duty to supply such data recorded in the form in which he holds it.

  The exercise of the powers in section 52(1) is subject to new section 52(1A), as inserted by paragraph 6 of Schedule 21 to the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. New section 52(1A) enables the Secretary of State to give directions requiring a registration officer to maintain his registers in a specified electronic form. By virtue of section 8(1) of the 2000 Act the exercise of the powers in section 52 of the 1983 Act, as amended, is exercisable only on, and in accordance with, a recommendation of the Electoral Commission.

  183W
  Subject to consultation with the Commission we propose to bring section 8 of and paragraph 6 of Schedule 21 to the 2000 Act into force on 16 February 2001. Thereafter it will be a matter for the Commission to consider whether to recommend to the Secretary of State that registers of electors should be maintained in a common data format and, if so, what format should be prescribed.

  Licensing Applications
  Mr. Bill O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what steps he is taking to assure applicants under the proposed licensing procedures that they will receive a fair judicial hearing if trained magistrates are removed from the licensing awards procedures; and if he will make a statement; [142183]

  (2) what steps he is taking to avoid a conflict of interests if the magistrates licensing authority is transferred to local councillors; and if he will make a statement. [142179]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Under the proposals for reform of the licensing laws in our White Paper, "Time for Reform", my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary would be responsible for making statutory rules to govern the procedures under which local authorities acting as licensing authorities would deal with applications for the issue, renewal, variation or termination of personal and premises licences.

  The aim of such rules would be to ensure that these matters, which will be subject to appeal, are dealt with in a fair, timely and impartial way. Local authorities would also be expected to take account of their own legal advice as necessary and to ensure that those dealing with licensing matters received proper training in the new law and their responsibilities under it.

  Mr. Bill O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what role local magistrates will play under his proposals to transfer all licensing matters to local government; and if he will make a statement. [142182]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Under proposals for reform of the licensing laws set out in our White Paper, "Time for Reform", it would be the responsibility of magistrates courts to try cases involving alleged offences against licensing law, including breaches of licence conditions, and punish the offenders. The White Paper also proposed that magistrates sitting with a judge in the Crown court should deal with appeals against licensing decisions made by local authorities. We have been considering comments on these and the other White Paper proposal, and will announce our conclusions shortly.

PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  Primary Legislation
  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the President of the Council when primary legislation will be printed in the new format agreed by both Houses in 1999. [142856]

  Mrs. Beckett
  The new format is being introduced this Session, using new computer software which has had to be developed. The change will be staged, to allow 184W
  everyone involved to become accustomed to working in the new format and to minimise the risk of disruption should there turn out to be flaws in the software.

  For the time being, Bills will continue to be introduced in the old format apart from any Bill originating from the Tax Law Rewrite. Each Bill will be published in the new format in the second House, once it has completed its passage through the first.

  So, Bills introduced in this House will be in the old format during their stages in this House; but Bills brought from the other place will be in the new format throughout our consideration of them. Similarly, the other place will deal with Bills introduced there in the old format, but deal with Bills brought from this House in the new format.

  All Acts passed after 1 January 2001 will be in the new format.

  When we are fully confident that the new format and software are problem-free, it will be used for all Bills at all stages.

HEALTH

  Hospital-acquired Infections
  Mr. Lilley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of beds are occupied by patients suffering from infections acquired in hospital in each NHS health authority and hospital trust. [141321]

  Mr. Denham
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 21 November 2000,Official Report, columns 163–64W.

  A compulsory national surveillance scheme of hospital-acquired infection is being developed and will be launched in April 2001. Data will be published from April 2002.

  MRSA
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many cases of MRSA have been detected in NHS hospitals; what steps including ward closures have been taken to prevent the spread of the infection; and what has been the resulting loss of medical facilities which would otherwise have been available. [141379]

  Mr. Denham
  The Public Health Laboratory Service (PHLS) compiles aggregate data on numbers of incidents of methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) which are voluntarily submitted by trusts for specialist microbiological tests. These are given in the table.

  Data on Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemias (blood infections) showing the proportion resistant to methicillin in England and Wales are published quarterly by the PHLS in their Communicable Disease Report, copies of which are available in the Library of the House. More comprehensive information about bacteraemias, including MRSA, will be collected from all acute trusts from 1 April 2001 and data will be published from 1 April 2002.
  185W
  The other information requested is not held centrally.

  incidents of MRSA 1996–1998

  1996

  1997

  1998

  Anglia and Oxford

  237

  297

  223

  North Thames

  539

  544

  289

  North West

  176

  259

  215

  Northern and Yorkshire

  150

  224

  202

  South and West

  206

  254

  101

  South Thames

  421

  385

  220

  Trent

  99

  123

  109

  West Midlands

  121

  102

  69

  Wales

  158

  176

  169

  Total

  2,107

  2,364

  1,597

  Incidents of MRSA 1999–2000

  1999

  2000

  Eastern

  80

  30

  London

  290

  100

  Northern and Yorkshire

  170

  40

  North West

  180

  50

  South East

  170

  60

  South West

  40

  10

  Trent

  100

  30

  West Midlands

  30

  30

  Wales

  130

  30

  Total

  1,190

  380

  Notes:

  1. For 1996 and the first half of 1997 data have been amalgamated to the approximate boundaries of the new Regional Office areas. This allows for comparison with subsequent years.

  2. An incident is three or more patients infected or colonised by the same strain of MRSA in the same month from the same hospital.

  3. The criteria for submission of isolates of MRSA (and other isolates of staphylococcus aureus) to the PHLS for specialist tests have been revised twice since 1996 (in January 1998 and in January 2000).

  4. These revised criteria have led to a fall in the number of incidents of MRSA that were reported to the PHLS.

  Hormone Replacement Therapy
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will take steps to provide for the reclassification of hormone replacement therapy so that it qualifies for medical exemption certificate. [141367]

  Mr. Denham
  We reviewed the prescription charging arrangements as part of the Comprehensive Spending Review and concluded that the present arrangements should remain for the rest of this Parliament. Our policy is that, with the exception of contraceptives, exemption applies to the individual's medical condition rather than the type of medication prescribed. Charging arrangements in Wales are a matter for the National Assembly for Wales.

  Child Asylum Seekers
  Ms Kelly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many separated children seeking asylum were accommodated in bed and breakfast hostels and hotel annexes in each of the last three years in(a) Britain, (b) each region and (c) Bolton; and how many of these were under the age of 16. [142042]
  186W
  Mr. Hutton
  Statistics on the number of unaccompanied asylum seeking children accommodated in bed and breakfast hostels and hotel annexes are not held centrally.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much grant was(a) claimed by and (b) awarded to each local authority in England and Wales for the cost of supporting unaccompanied children who were asylum seekers in (i) 1996–97, (ii) 1997–98, (iii) 1998–99, (iv) 1999–2000 and (v) the period since 1 April. [142446]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 12 December 2000]: The amount of grant (a) claimed by and (b) awarded to each local authority in England for the cost of supporting unaccompanied asylum seeking children in the grant years 1996–97,1997–98,1998–99 and 1999–2000 is set out in the tables. Claims covering the period since 1 April 2000 have not yet been submitted by local authorities. Comparable figures for Wales are not available.

  1996–97

  A cash limited grant of£3 million was allocated on a pro-rata basis to qualifying authorities. In 1996–97, local authorities who qualified for payment of the special grant were those whose eligible expenditure on unaccompanied asylum seeking children exceeded 5 per cent. of the 1996–97 standard spending assessment for children's personal social services.

  £

  Local authority

  Amount claimed

  Amount paid

  Hillingdon

  3,050,711

  2,224,300

  Kensington

  1,137,495

  425,986

  Westminster

  1,235,490

  347,699

  City of London

  12,909

  2,044

  1997–98

  The same grant conditions applied as in 1996–97.

  £

  Local authority

  Amount claimed

  Amount paid

  Croydon

  1,584,569

  741,596

  Hillingdon

  1,303,470

  115,600

  Westminster

  897,163

  441,179

  Kensington

  805,731

  255,613

  City of London

  29,254

  32,616

  Notes:

  1. Hillingdon was overpaid by £749,810 in 1996–97 due to (a) a much higher estimated than actual expenditure (b) disallowance of no eligible spending.

  2. Westminster was underpaid by £400,016 in 1996–97 due to a lower estimated than actual expenditure.

  3. Kensington was underpaid by £103,882 in 1996–97 due to a lower estimated than actual expenditure.

  4. City of London was underpaid by £14,362 in 1996–97 due to a lower estimated than actual expenditure.

  1998–99

  The grant was allocated to local authorities on the basis of actual expenditure incurred between 1 April 1998 and 29 January 1999, and estimated expenditure for the period 30 January 1999 to 31 March 1999, up to a maximum of £400 per week for each child aged 15 years or under, and£200 per week for each child aged 16 or 17.
  187W

  £

  Local authority

  Amount claimed

  Amount paid to local authority

  Barking and Dagenham LB

  957,377.00

  957,377.00

  Barnet LB

  344,416.03

  344,416.03

  Bexley LB

  147,434.00

  147,200.00

  Birmingham CC

  29,629.98

  29,629.98

  Brent LB

  647,154.59

  647,154.59

  Bristol CC

  10,651.65

  10,651.65

  Bromley LB

  254,000.00

  254,000.00

  Buckinghamshire CC

  17,000.00

  17,000.00

  Cambridgeshire CC

  19,200.00

  19,200.00

  Camden LB

  964,803.00

  964,803.00

  Cheshire CC

  800.00

  800.00

  Croydon LB

  1,695,619.00

  954,050.00

  Dudley MB

  12,136.66

  12,136.66

  Ealing LB

  478,771.00

  444,800.00

  East Sussex CC

  8,255.24

  8,255.24

  Enfield LB

  144,600.00

  144,600.00

  Essex CC

  168,338.03

  168,338.03

  Gloucestershire CC

  9,475.00

  9,475.00

  Greenwich LB

  147,629.01

  147,629.01

  Hackney LB

  375,668.36

  375,668.36

  Hammersmith and Fulham LB

  1,412,000.00

  1,412,000.00

  Haringey LB

  1,695,278.68

  1,355,200.00

  Harrow LB

  98,503.00

  98,503.00

  Havering LB

  47,600.00

  47,600.00

  Hillingdon LB

  1,928,200.00

  1,843,352.00

  Hounslow LB

  101,955.00

  101,955.00

  Islington LB

  1,405,400.00

  1,405,400.00

  Kensington and Chelsea

  646,924.00

  704,613.00

  Kent CC

  1,502,095.00

  1,425,200.00

  Kingston-upon-Thames

  15,456.59

  15,456.59

  Kingston upon Hull CC

  36,127.00

  36,127.00

  Lambeth LB

  140,457.00

  140,457.00

  Lancashire CC

  4,200.00

  4,200.00

  Leicester CC

  3,135.12

  3,135.12

  Leicestershire CC

  733.45

  733.45

  Lewisham LB

  357,233.00

  357,233.00

  Lincolnshire CC

  47,876.76

  47,876.76

  Liverpool CC

  2,844.32

  2,844.32

  Luton BC

  12,793.20

  12,793.20

  Medway CC

  68,671.16

  68,671.16

  Merton LB

  119,878.95

  119,878.95

  North East Lincolnshire CC

  9,460.00

  9,460.00

  Newham LB

  211,055.39

  211,055.39

  Norfolk CC

  18,388.00

  18,388.00

  North Somerset CC

  9,804.66

  9,804.66

  Nottingham CC

  12,342.79

  12,342.79

  Nottinghamshire CC

  17,504.95

  17,504.95

  Oxfordshire CC

  44,417.95

  44,417.95

  Portsmouth CC

  1,095.00

  1,095.00

  Redbridge LB

  195,277.00

  195,277.00

  Redcar and Cleveland CC

  17,156.81

  17,156.81

  Richmond-upon-Thames

  483,162.06

  483,162.06

  Rutland CC

  12,460.00

  12,460.00

  Salford CC

  3,404.00

  3,404.00

  Sandwell CC

  24,000.00

  24,000.00

  Sefton CC

  55,315.80

  28,600.00

  Sheffield CC

  24,296.00

  24,296.00

  Solihull MBC

  533.00

  533.00

  South Gloucestershire CC

  5,800.00

  5,800.00

  Southend on Sea BC

  12,136.00

  12,136.00

  Southwark LB

  501,000.00

  501,000.00

  Staffordshire CC

  102,744.45

  102,744.45

  Surrey CC

  41,000.00

  41,000.00

  Sutton LB

  82,471.55

  82,471.55

  Swindon BC

  26,974.00

  26,974.00

  Thurrock CC

  51,758.74

  51,758.74

  Tower Hamlets LB

  77,800.00

  77,800.00

  Wakefield MDC

  11,868.05

  11,868.05

  Waltham Forest LB

  193,209.00

  193,209.00

  Wandsworth LB

  625,600.00

  625,600.00

  Warrington BC

  1,680.00

  1,680.00

  188W

  £

  Local authority

  Amount claimed

  Amount paid to local authority

  Warwickshire CC

  21,500.00

  21,500.00

  West Sussex CC

  587,000.00

  587.000.00

  Westminster CC

  1,879,200.00

  1,844,178.00

  Wiltshire CC

  6,581.00

  6,581.00

  York City Council

  460.00

  400.00

  1999–2000

  The same grant conditions applied as in 1998–99 but the f400/£200 rate for each child was increased to£500/£300 for those local authorities with the highest numbers of unaccompanied children (Barking and Dagenham, Croydon, Hammersmith and Fulham, Haringey, Hillingdon, Islington, Kent, Lambeth, Redbridge, Richmond-upon-Thames, Southwark, Westminster).

  Payments for 1999–2000 were made in February 2000, based on actual expenditure from 1 April 1999 to 28 January 2000 and estimated expenditure from 29 January 2000 to 31 March 2000. Therefore, the figures in the following table are provisional and subject to final audit and adjustment in January 2001.

  £

  Local authority

  Amount claimed

  Amount paid to local authority1

  Barking and Dagenham LB

  1,642,392.00

  11,672,523.13

  Barnet LB

  587,000.00

  1552,383.97

  Bath and North East Somerset CC

  3,939.20

  3,939.20

  Bedfordshire CC

  98,400.00

  98,400.00

  Bexley LB

  600,435.00

  1601,908.00

  Birmingham CC

  168,367.85

  1164,619.97

  Brent LB

  380,460.19

  1350,092.07

  Brighton and Hove

  27,493.72

  27,493.72

  Bristol CC

  116,600.00

  1117,310.03

  Bromley LB

  380,000.00

  1370,366.00

  Buckinghamshire CC

  17,352.31

  114,518.41

  Bury

  848.60

  848.60

  Cambridgeshire

  0

  112,200.00

  Camden LB

  1,046,400.00

  1900,561.00

  Cheshire CC

  2,141.83

  2,141.83

  Cornwall

  2,505.14

  2,505.14

  Corporation of London

  11,000.00

  11,000.00

  Croydon LB

  1,657,745.00

  11,633,838.00

  Darlington BC

  2,600.00

  11,703.20

  Derby City C

  3,518.00

  1-1,153.56

  Dorset CC

  2,413.00

  2,413.00

  Dudley MB

  19,718.73

  110,406.84

  Ealing LB

  1,027,000.00

  11,027,800.00

  East Sussex CC

  13,263.00

  116,304.19

  Enfield LB

  513,900.00

  1538,327.00

  Essex CC

  333,200.00

  1352,729.53

  Gateshead MBC

  1,241.29

  1,241.29

  Gloucestershire CC

  40,830.00

  140,774.00

  Greenwich LB

  279,923.00

  1255,877.75

  Hackney LB

  589,733.93

  1526,400.00

  Hammersmith and Fulham LB

  1,764,600.00

  12,465,500.00

  Hampshire CC

  40,584.65

  40,584.65

  Haringey LB

  3,102,200.00

  12,919,800.00

  Harrow LB

  474,800.00

  1466,392.00

  Havering LB

  544,400.00

  1507,670.00

  Herefordshire

  1,920.04

  1,920.04

  Hertfordshire

  515,788.44

  515,788.44

  Hillingdon LB

  4,232,061.00

  15,811,933.71

  Hounslow LB

  141,334.87

  1141,334.87

  Islington LB

  3,821,140.00

  14,137,079.00

  Kensington and Chelsea RB

  1,496,800.00

  11,813,409.00

  Kent CC

  5,163,600.00

  17,102,853.00

  Kirklees MBC

  6,628.60

  15,970.36

  Kingston upon Hull CC

  13,326.42

  114,366.42

  189W

  £

  Local authority

  Amount claimed

  Amount paid to local authority1

  Kingston-upon-Thames

  135,600.00

  17,756.34

  Lambeth LB

  2,281,400.00

  12,454,965.00

  Lancashire CC

  1,967.00

  12,167.00

  Leeds CC

  5,025.53

  5,025.53

  Leicester CC

  57,969.47

  57,969.47

  Leicestershire CC

  37,164.36

  138,072.41

  Lewisham LB

  952,921.00

  1902,130.00

  Lincolnshire CC

  67,593.33

  159,335.68

  Liverpool CC

  18,630.65

  120,309.65

  Luton BC

  0

  1-12,793.20

  Medway CC

  83,951.56

  182,853.73

  Merton LB

  274,288.88

  1275,905.88

  Middlesbrough

  1,424.25

  11,418.42

  Milton Keynes MBC

  3,942.27

  3,942.27

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  39,200.00

  135,959.50

  Newham LB

  276,878.97

  276,878.97

  Norfolk CC

  44,143.92

  148,129.92

  Northamptonshire CC

  255,891.16

  1259,456.16

  North Lincolnshire

  223.45

  1-375.85

  North East Lincolnshire CC

  73,589.58

  173,689.67

  North Somerset CC

  9,804.66

  9,804.66

  Nottingham CC

  59,200.00

  156,272.96

  Nottinghamshire CC

  33,851.30

  133,724.87

  Oxfordshire CC

  210,465.90

  1211,827.90

  Peterborough

  4,302.00

  4,302.00

  Portsmouth CC

  16,400.00

  114,619.00

  Redbridge LB

  1,359,072.00

  11,204,239.00

  Redcar and Cleveland CC

  18,731.66

  118,275.21

  Richmond-upon-Thames

  1,348,108.33

  11,381,285.32

  Rutland CC

  1,969.95

  12,905.95

  Salford CC

  0

  1-136.00

  Sandwell CC

  18,000.00

  138,800.00

  Sefton MBC

  0

  1-1,880,00

  Sheffield CC

  67,140.00

  142,744.00

  Shropshire CC

  986.00

  19,141.00

  Slough BC

  64,200.00

  1-14,001.00

  Solihull CC

  10,605.00

  110,925.00

  Somerset CC

  12,184.95

  12,184.95

  South Gloucestershire CC

  23,496.35

  123,113.35

  Southampton CC

  19,504.03

  19,504,03

  Southend on Sea BC

  49,115.05

  152,867.05

  Southwark LB

  1,893,200.00

  11,784,700.00

  Staffordshire CC

  128,182.47

  1123,430.88

  Suffolk CC

  90,319.35

  188,902.24

  Sunderland

  2,000.00

  2,000.00

  Surrey CC

  107,385.00

  1109,585.00

  Sutton LB

  482,000.00

  1361,706.00

  Swindon BC

  84,949.00

  190,417.00

  Thurrock CC

  161,817.11

  1168,057.16

  Tower Hamlets LB

  186,200.00

  1191,000.00

  Trafford MBC

  930.00

  930.00

  Wakefield MDC

  53,560.40

  145,566.08

  Walsall MBC

  9,996.00

  9,916.00

  Waltham Forest LB

  725,025.00

  1725,025.00

  Wandsworth LB

  407,190.30

  1485,134.30

  Warrington BC

  28,500.00

  127,121.40

  Warwickshire CC

  101,726.17

  181,050.17

  West Sussex CC

  958,642.00

  1968,242.00

  Westminster CC

  1,932,800.00

  12,529,900.00

  Wiltshire CC

  7,400.00

  15,963.00

  Wolverhampton MBC

  907.59

  1-4,494.59

  Worcestershire CC

  40,714.96

  40,714.96

  1 Amounts of grant paid reflects adjustments for credit/debit for UASC Grant 1998–99 and Families and Adult grants for 1998–99

  Welfare Food Scheme
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many children under the age of five years in(a) day care, (b) local authority infant classes, (c) local authority nursery schools or classes, (d) private or voluntary nursery schools or classes and (e) pre-school playgroups benefit
  190W
  from the Welfare Food Scheme; and what is the total cost of providing free milk to children in England under the age of five years through the Welfare Food Scheme in (i) schools and (ii) day care. [142113]

  Yvette Cooper
  The information requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost. The total annual cost of the nursery milk element of the welfare food scheme was£13,924,000 in England in 1999–2000. This reimburses day care providers who claim under the scheme with the cost of one third of a pint of milk per day. The table shows the percentage of money paid in November 2000 to establishment types as recorded.

  Establishment type

  Percentage of total cost to welfare food scheme in November 2000

  Registered day care

  49.52

  Local education authority school

  41.46

  Registered childminder

  4.34

  Local education authority nursery

  1.75

  Grant maintained school

  1.49

  Independent non-maintained school

  0.52

  Other

  0.92

  Total

  100

  In addition, children under the age of five in families in receipt of Income Support or income-based Job Seekers Allowance receive a token which is exchangeable for a pint of milk a day.

  Non-residential Community Care Services
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many appeals by individuals receiving nonresidential community care services have been brought on grounds of excessive levels of charges set by local authorities; and what proportion of these appeals were successfully upheld. [141509]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information requested is not held centrally.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent research his Department has commissioned into the impact of local authority charging policies on the take-up of non-residential community care services. [141510]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department has not commissioned any recent research on this issue.

  Accident and Emergency Departments
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the turnaround time was for the Ambulance Service admitting patients to accident and emergency for each quarter in the last 12 months in each NHS Trust in London Region with an accident and emergency department. [141505]

  Ms Stuart
  The information requested is not held centrally by the Department. The hon. Member may wish to contact the Chairman of London Ambulance Service National Health Service Trust direct for this information.

  Social Services Charges
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much each local authority recouped from social services charges in each of the last four years. [141511]

  Mr. Hutton
  Information is available at http://www.doh.gov.uk/public/pss—stat.htm showing a breakdown by local authority and service of income from fees and charges in 1996–97 and 1997–98 and income from sales, fees and charges in 1998–99 (fees and charges is not available separately for 1998–99). Corresponding information for 1999–2000 will be made available at the same address when it is published in spring 2001.

  Hardship Policy
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has(a) to modify Social Services Inspectorate advice in respect of changing policies and (b) to take other steps in relation to the prevention of hardship prior to the introduction of statutory guidance. [141497]

  Mr. Hutton
  We plan to consult on draft statutory guidance on charges for non-residential social services shortly. When issued as statutory guidance, this will supersede the 1994 Advice Note to the Department's social services inspectorate.

  The guidance will make clear that it is not acceptable for charges to cause hardship to individual service users. The Audit Commission study, 'Charging with Care', published in May, contains detailed advice to help councils prevent this.

  Nurse Training
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many places are available at nursing schools for nurse training; and how many of these places are currently taken up. [142505]

  Mr. Denham
  The forecast number of nurse training places to be commissioned in 2000–01 is 20,325. Confirmation of the number of places taken up will not be available until after the end of the financial year.

  Source

  Non-Medical Education and Training Levy Quarterly Monitoring Report Q2 2000–01

  London Ambulance Service
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to reorganise the basis from which the London Ambulance Service operates. [142205]

  Ms Stuart
  There are currently no plans to reorganise the basis from which the London Ambulance Service operates. The LAS will continue to serve the London area.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to encourage retention of staff in the London Ambulance Service. [142203]

  Ms Stuart
  We are committed to encourage the retention of staff within the National Health Service. We launched the improving working lives (IWL) campaign last year, which encourages employers to enable staff to create a balance between their work, and home lives. This can vary from trust to trust but may include self rostering,192W
  annualised hours, flexi-time and child care provisions. We have issued tools to employers to help them implement such initiatives.

  The IWL standard was launched on 4 October and summarises the commitment Ministers expect from NHS employers to create well-managed, flexible working environments that support staff, and respect their need to manage a healthy and productive balance between their work and their life outside work. It sets a model of good human resource practice against which NHS employers and their staff can measure the organisations's human resource management, and against which NHS employers will be kite-marked. By April 2003 all NHS employers are expected to be accredited as putting the IWL standard into practice. IWL is not exclusive to doctors and nurses and all staff should therefore benefit from it.

  The London Ambulance Service NHS Trust has developed a four-year performance implementation programme (PIP) which identifies the need for additional funding. This will be agreed with the health authority commissioners and the NHS Executive London Regional Office how funding for the PIP can be phased.

  The PIP includes a number of measures aimed at encouraging staff retention, such as enhanced rates of pay over the winter period, commitment to working with trade union representatives to see how pay can be improved next year and looking at feedback from front line staff. The London Ambulance Service Chief Executive has written to all frontline staff outlining plans for action on pay, crew safety and staff facilities.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to address shortages of ambulance staff in London. [142209]

  Ms Stuart
  The London Ambulance Service and commissioners have agreed to 122 more staff on the establishment at the end of this year compared with last year. Sixty-five staff are already in post and a further 70 in training. The remainder will be recruited during the rest of the year 2000–01.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to invest in more ambulance vehicles for the London Ambulance Service. [142204]

  Ms Stuart
  This year the London Ambulance Service will have an additional 25 vehicles compared to last year. These will be targeted towards Category A calls. Eleven are already staffed and operational.

  Helicopter Ambulance Services
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to expand helicopter ambulance services in London. [142207]

  Ms Stuart
  There are no current plans to expand helicopter ambulance services in London.

  Hepatitis
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many intravenous(a) drug users and (b) insulin users are infected with hepatitis. [142211]
  193W
  Yvette Cooper
  Routine surveillance of hepatitis B infection is based on laboratory diagnoses. Data on injecting drug users from 1995 to 1999 are given in the table. These data are subject to under-reporting as about 60 per cent. of adult infections are asymptomatic and information about risk factors that may be relevant to the acquisition of infection is not available for about 40 per cent. of reports.

  Acute hepatitis B infection laboratory reports in injecting drug users England and Wales, 1995 to 1999

  Injecting drug users

  Total

  1995

  147

  614

  1996

  166

  569

  1997

  192

  652

  1998

  251

  843

  19991

  230

  719

  1 Provisional data

  Source

  Public Health Laboratory Service

  Routine surveillance of hepatitis C infection is based on laboratory reports of antibodies to hepatitis C. Data on injecting drug users from 1995 to 1999 are given in the table. These data do not distinguish between resolved and chronic infections and are subject to under reporting as most infections will be asymptomatic. Information about the acquisition of risk factors that may be relevant to the acquisition of infection is available only for about 50 per cent. of reports.

  Laboratory reports of antibodies to hepatitis C in injecting drug users England and Wales, 1995 to 1999

  Injecting drug users

  Total

  1995

  815

  1,662

  19961

  1,220

  2,544

  19971

  1,432

  3,059

  19981, 2

  1,761

  4,466

  19991, 2

  1,961

  5,554

  1 Provisional data

  2 Includes child injecting drug users

  Source

  Public Health Laboratory Service

  There have been 14 laboratory reports of acute hepatitis B infections in diabetics in the period 1990 to 1999. However in only three of these was the diabetic needle considered a possible source of infection.

  Ambulance Staff (Pay)
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish pay scales for ambulance staff; and what plans he has for incremental payments for trained paramedics wishing to remain in clinical service. [142208]
  194W
  Mr. Denham
  The current pay scales for ambulance staff employed on national conditions of service are set out in Advance Letter (AMB) 1/2000 for ambulance men and in AL (AC) 2/2000 for ambulance officers.

  Negotiations are ongoing with representatives of National Health Service employers and trade unions on a modernised pay system for the National Health Service based on the principles set out in "Agenda for Change" which was published in February 1999.

  Copies of these documents are available in the Library.

  Rofecoxib (Vioxx)
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the National Institute for Clinical Excellence appraisal of Rofecoxib (Vioxx) will be published. [142268]

  Mr. Denham
  The timing of appraisals is a matter for the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) itself, which is an independent special health authority. However, I understand that NICE is due to complete appraisals of COX II selective inhibitors, including Rofecoxib, in January 2001. Further information on the Institute's work programme can be found on its website at www.nice.org.uk.

  Official Publications
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will list each new publication issued by his Department since 1997; and what the total cost was to the Department of each publication; [141463]

  (2) what his Department's spending on official publications was for (a) 1996–97, (b) 1997–98, (c) 1998–99, (d) 1999–2000 and (e) 2000–01; and what the planned expenditure is for 2001–02. [141448]

  Ms Stuart
  The information requested is not collected centrally and can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Patients' Forums
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will provide further guidance on the constitution and powers of the proposed patients' forums; and if he will make a statement. [141529]

  Ms Stuart
  [holding answer 11 December 2000]: A series of national stakeholder seminars has been held to develop the details of the policy. This is based on the best practice from voluntary organisations and community health councils.

  We will disseminate the results at a national event in the new year.

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

NHS Doctors: Retirement
Lord Janner of Braunstone Lord Janner of Braunstone asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will abolish compulsory retirement ages for doctors employed by the National Health Service.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): My Lords, although the retirement age for NHS staff is normally 65, flexibility in the system already allows trusts and health authorities to employ doctors up to the age of 70. From the age of 70 doctors may continue to be employed, subject to the needs of the service and to quality assurance.
Lord Janner of Braunstone: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that, at a time when so many parts of this country are gravely in need of doctors, it is ludicrous and an anomaly to force doctors into retirement at the age of 70 if they are still skilled and competent? He referred to the exceptions to the rule but he left one out: in exceptional circumstances doctors are allowed to practise after the age of 70 for only two months out of nine. Surely if a doctor is fit to serve for two months out of nine, he or she is fit to serve for the whole nine months. Has it occurred to my noble friend what the effect of the application of such a rule in this place would be and how, for seven months out of nine, this place would be half empty?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, that, indeed, would be a tragedy. My noble friend is half right in that practitioners over the age of 70 can be employed if, as he said, the period of employment is for not more than two months in any nine-month period; if there is a pressing need for the employment and it cannot be filled through a regular appointment; if a breakdown in service would result if the appointment were not made; and if the authority is satisfied that the practitioner is suitably qualified and is fit both mentally and physically to undertake the duties of the post. However, a practitioner over the age of 70 may be employed for more than two months subject to quality assurance and subject to a variation order under the direction of the Secretary of State which may set aside any of the conditions that I have mentioned. It is very much in the hands of the individual employer to apply to the Secretary of State for such an order.
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, in asking a supplementary question, I declare an interest as it is
356
almost nine years since I received a letter from the Oxford Health Authority thanking me for my services but saying that, now that I have reached the age of 70, I could visit the hospital for social but not clinical reasons. Does the noble Lord agree that the issue concerns not so much chronological as biological age? Is it not reasonable to consider that annual extensions of clinical contracts might be awarded to doctors where the employing authority and the doctor wish it? As the noble Lord, Lord Janner, said, we are very short of doctors and some, I am afraid, are retiring early because of pressure of work and stress.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I agree that we need a flexible approach. Some doctors will retire early because, as the noble Lord suggested, they may feel that the time has come to end their career. Equally, flexibility in the system is required to allow doctors to continue to work when they wish to do so. A sensible arrangement is in place which allows doctors to work up to the age of 70 and to work beyond it subject to the conditions that I have set out. I believe it is right that the local employer should decide whether to apply for a variation order if it wishes a doctor who can contribute to the service to continue to do so beyond the age of 70.
Lord Elton: My Lords, what would the noble Lord consider the biological age of the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, to be?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, haN, ing been subject to his penetrating questions over the past two years, I would say that it is a very young age indeed.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the problem concerns not so much the retirement of GPs at the age of 70 as early retirements, which are now becoming so common in the health service? In July, the Government published guidance on flexible retirement, but it was purely guidance. Should not financial incentives be available to try to persuade doctors to stay in the service and to enhance their pensions in so doing?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, 1 understand that in recent years the average retirement age for doctors has risen. However, I accept that we need to consider the financial arrangements which relate to doctors. In particular we need to ensure that their pension rights are not affected unduly if they wish to continue in either full or part-time work. As part of the flexible retirement packages that we are developing, and as the noble Lord suggested, we are trying to ensure that pensions become more flexible. We have developed some schemes which enable staff who are approaching retirement to move to part-time work without suffering a reduction in their pension benefits or to move to new roles which, even though they may be lower paid, preserve the pension entitlements from the higher level posts. Therefore, I believe that we are making progress in that area.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, is the Minister aware that in some countries, such as Australia, general practitioners often continue to practise well into their 80s? However, that is dependent on their being of sound health and up-to-date on new developments in the medical field. Do provisions exist in this country for doctors who are over the age of 70 and who wish to continue in general practice to be updated on current medical treatment?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, when the Secretary of State considers a request from an individual employer to make a variation order, the Secretary of State must satisfy himself that the doctor is an appropriate person for whom the variation order can be made. It is also worth making the point that we are introducing appraisals for all NHS doctors, including locums, starting in April next year. That accords with the kind of system to which the noble Baroness referred.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, will the number of new doctors overcome the difficulty and what have the Government done about that?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I am glad to say that the number of doctors in the NHS has increased by over 4,000 since 1997, which is encouraging progress indeed. In addition, we announced in the NHS plan that we seek an increase of 7,500 more consultants and 2,000 more GPs. In addition, we have seen already a considerable increase in the number of medical training places, which will enable us, over the next few years, to increase our capacity. So there is no doubt that the present situation is one of real pressure on staff. There is no doubt that the health service has suffered over the years from a capacity constraint. I believe that with the increase in the number of training places and the movements that we are making in terms of flexible working, we shall be able to increase capacity in the way that we have suggested.
Lord McColl of Dulwich: My Lords, has the Minister considered the possibility of raising the age for consultants from 65 to 70, because that would relieve many of the problems?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, it is perfectly acceptable for consultants to continue working in the health service up to the age of 70. There is no problem about that at all, if the employing authority deems that to be acceptable. As part of our general direction and encouragement to the NHS to improve its recruitment and retention practices, we have encouraged it to be much more flexible in the way that it employs staff. I certainly would encourage all NHS employers to consider employing people over the age of 65 where they consider them to be able to offer a good resource and service to the public.

House of Lords: Accommodation
2.44 p.m.
Lord Hardy of Wath Lord Hardy of Wath asked the Chairman of Committees:
How many rooms are to become available for the use of Peers as a result of the provision of additional offices for Members of the House of Commons.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish): My Lords, the House of Commons intends to hand over five rooms to this House in February 2001. Your Lordships will also be aware that desks for 75 Peers became available on 1st December in 7 Little College Street. Next summer, approximately 200 more desks will become available in Millbank House, the Palace itself and 7 Old Palace Yard.
Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord on his appointment and thank him for his reply, not least since he has had remarkably little time in which to consider the issue.
However, does the noble Lord recall the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, on the debate on the Address last week about the length of sittings and the question posed by my noble friend Lord Graham when he asked which was the part-time House? Does he not consider that many of us would be happier to have a share of a desk in the main building rather than in a distant building, especially as many of us are getting older and that we find the distance and the traffic on the road rather dangerous?
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I may be answering from this Dispatch Box, but I am not responsible for what the Government do about their legislative programme. I fully understand the point which the noble Lord makes about the advantages of having a desk in this building rather than having to go outside to another building, especially in view of the kind of autumn that we have had. Of course, there are limitations on the number of people that we can squeeze into the Palace of Westminster, but I very much hope that those Peers who venture out of doors to their desk will be those who are happy to do so, given the accommodation then to be found.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord the Minister—
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Avebury: My Lords, the noble Lord really looks as though he is to the manor born! Has the noble Lord given consideration to asking the other place to let us have back the Pugin Room?
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Avebury: My Lords, so that we can exile smokers from the Library there?
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, there are two issues there: the first relates to the difficult

359
question of smokers, and I suspect that that will continue to haunt me, so to speak; the other relates to the Pugin Room. I am not entirely sure how willing the House of Commons would be to give back the Pugin Room or anything else it has. I am sure that the noble Lord remembers being in the other place, as I do. He may agree with me that we should not hold out too much hope that the other place may take a reasonable view of our requests.
Lord Islwyn: My Lords, does the Minister recall that some years ago a large block of offices in the Lords' precincts were handed over to the Commons for its uses? Is that block of offices now to be handed back to the Lords and, if so, when?
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I am almost embarrassed by the number of times that noble Lords have referred to me as a Minister. I rather take it that that shows the view they have of their colleagues on these Benches.
I believe that the noble Lord is referring to the offices on the Upper Committee Corridor South. I have had a fairly brief opportunity to look into this matter and I should tell the noble Lord that those offices were constructed in the roof of the Palace in the 1960s specifically for the use of MPs. They never belonged to the House of Lords. The air space may have belonged to the House of Lords but that would be a difficult argument to have with the other place.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, does the noble Lord recall on what basis the Pugin Room was originally handed over to the Commons? Perhaps it was handed over only on a temporary basis. Judging by the carpet, it looks as though it really belongs to us.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, if it was handed over on a temporary basis, it was done in 1906, and in 1906 the Pugin Room was exchanged for Committee Room 4.

Nigerian State Funds
2.49 p.m.
Baroness Williams of Crosby Baroness Williams of Crosby asked Her Majesty's Government:
What government agency is investigating the laundering of Nigeria's state funds by former President Abacha in the United Kingdom, and when it will report.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Bassam of Brighton): My Lords, the Government take very seriously any claims that money launderers have exploited financial institutions in the United Kingdom. The Financial Services Authority is investigating allegations of possible laundering of illegally obtained Nigerian state funds in the United Kingdom. The Serious Fraud Office is gathering evidence on behalf of the Swiss Government in relation to those funds.
360
Because of the very sensitive nature of those inquiries, I am afraid that I cannot give your Lordships any further information about them nor, sadly, indicate when they are likely to be completed.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, the House will be aware that recently Nigeria has moved from a vicious military dictatorship to the re-establishment of democracy under President Obasanjo. Can the Minister confirm that as long ago as April the democratic Government of Nigeria asked the Home Office, under the mutual services agreement, to investigate the laundering of Nigerian money through British banks? Can he also confirm that in October the Financial Services Authority said that it would investigate the issue; that in November the Serious Fraud Office said that it would investigate the issue; and that from April to this day the Government of Nigeria have received no return of that money, there have been no criminal proceedings and they have no evidence of what has happened to some 230 million dollars that the country badly needs?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords. I fully recognise the seriousness of the case made by the noble Baroness. I am not in a position to confirm or otherwise the comments that she has made. However, what is transparently obvious is that letters of request are communications between two states and relate to matters that are subject to criminal investigation and proceedings. Such matters are always dealt with confidentially.
Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the concern expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, is widely shared by other sides of the House? The consequence of an eight-month delay in being able to say anything publicly on the matter could well be that the funds that are the subject of the inquiry could be moved. Can the Minister give the House an assurance that the funds are secure where they are and that the delays in this long drawn out inquiry—an inquiry from a friendly head of state—will not lead to those funds disappearing?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, of course I share the concerns of the noble Lord. We are doing all that we can to ensure that those inquiries are expedited as quickly as possible. We have actively played our part in referring the requests to the appropriate department. I can assure the House that we shall continue to pursue matters as rigorously as we can. However, such matters have to be dealt with sensitively.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, is it not the case that some relatively poor countries have been stripped of their assets by kleptocratic rulers? Will the Home Office consult urgently with the Foreign Office and with the Treasury to ensure that appropriate action is taken?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I entirely sympathise with the first point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton. Yes, we are consulting and we are dealing closely with the agencies that are carrying out the investigations. We shall continue to work with foreign governments where letters of request are made. We shall take all necessary steps to ensure that action is taken.
Lord Carlile of Berriew: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House whether the available steps have been taken that would enable the funds to be frozen? If such steps have not been taken, why have they not been taken?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, our current criminal legislation does not allow for the freezing of assets until criminal proceedings have begun or are about to begin. That is a well understood situation, but perhaps it should be reviewed. We are undertaking a review. No doubt in the future there will be careful consideration given to improving those procedures.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the Swiss Federal Banking Commission has named and shamed 19 banks for handling Abacha cash? Credit Suisse is to be indicted for accepting large sums from the Abacha family. Why have the Government not acted fully on a request for mutual legal assistance? The Serious Fraud Office investigated only three of the banks implicated in the scandal related to the Abacha affair as a result of the Nigerian investigation. It is quite incomprehensible that Nigeria has been able to show that over 970 million dollars have been looted by Abacha from Nigeria and that they have flowed through British banks. Why has that not been revealed and why are the Government hiding the matter?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the Government are not hiding the matter. As I have said, we have co-operated as fully as we can. The Financial Services Authority is actively involved. That is as a result of the request of the Swiss Federal Banking Commission's investigation. Swiss legislation is different from our own. As I said, we are looking at ways in which we can improve the quality of our legislation. That commitment was given as recently as last week in the publication of the White Paper by the Department for International Development. We entirely understand the concerns of the noble Baroness and we shall continue to play an active role in ensuring that those appalling scandals are not repeated in the future.
Lord Lawson of Blaby: My Lords, is the Minister aware that he has been ill-advised—if he has been so advised—in telling the House that the funds can be frozen only if there are criminal prosecutions? The
362
Government have power to freeze funds even when there are no criminal prosecutions. That has happened on rare occasions in the past. It does not normally happen because the Bank of England policy, quite rightly, is that it is reluctant to freeze funds because the confidence in the City of London may be diminished if that happens. Nevertheless, the power is there and each case has to be judged on its merits.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I take careful note of what the noble Lord has said. He speaks with greater knowledge than I on these matters. As I have explained to your Lordships, the powers are there. I am interested in what the noble Lord has said. I shall ensure that I have been properly advised. I am confident that I have been advised wisely. As to the issue, it is absolutely right that we in government and the government agencies play a proper and full part in ensuring that those kinds of scandals do not take place in the future.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, will the Minister undertake to draw to the attention of the investigating authorities the deep concern in relation to this matter that has been expressed on all sides of the House and to point out that this is a matter to which the House is likely to return before long?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his advice in this matter. I take the comments that have been made seriously. I believe it is a serious matter. We try to fulfil our international obligations as best we can. For that reason we have looked again at issues such as the proceeds of crime. As the noble Lord is well aware, we intend to bring forward draft legislation to deal with those issues early in the new year.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, can the Minister assure the House that legislation on money laundering that, according to the Queen's Speech, is to be brought forward in this Session, will be drawn sufficiently widely so that, if a survey of the powers that he has mentioned has been completed by then, it will be possible to introduce amendments in that Bill?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I thought I had made it plain that it is a draft Bill. Like all other Members of your Lordships' House, the noble Lord will have ample opportunity, through the appropriate channels, to comment on the draft. We shall listen carefully to the comments made by the noble Lord and other Members of the House.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, will the Minister take this matter back, given that Nigeria—a country where 70 per cent of the population live on less than a dollar a day—is one of the great friends of Britain and so desperately needs the sums of money involved?

Equitable Life
2.58 p.m.
Lord Newby Lord Newby asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the Financial Services Authority has taken adequate action to safeguard the interests of Equitable Life policyholders.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, first I declare an interest in this issue as an Equitable Life policyholder through my additional voluntary contributions to the parliamentary pension scheme, an interest which is shared by all other members of the parliamentary pension scheme and the Civil Service pension scheme.
We have noted the statements from the Financial Services Authority and Equitable Life and welcome the fact that they are working closely together to bring the matter to a satisfactory conclusion to protect the interests of policyholders. The FSA is watching the situation carefully and will not hesitate to step in as necessary.
Lord Newby: My Lords, I suspect that virtually every family represented in this House either has an Equitable Life policyholder within it or knows somebody who has. So this issue deeply touches many people.
Will the Minister accept that deep anxiety exists in relation to the urgency of the current situation? Will the Government not just leave the FSA to take action—though it clearly has the prime responsibility—but also have urgent discussions with that organisation to ensure that it protects Equitable Life policyholders, particularly against the possibility of large numbers of them simultaneously seeking to transfer their policies? Further, will the Treasury, in the light of the problems that have arisen with Equitable Life, undertake to conduct a full review of its plans for stakeholder pensions, particularly in respect of the cap on management fees?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I made clear that the Government share the concerns rightly expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Newby. However, as he will remember from his participation in the proceedings on the Financial Services and Markets Bill, the Treasury has a contract with the Financial Services Authority to conduct the regulation of the insurance industry. I can assure the noble Lord that the contractual rights of policyholders will be respected. After all, the company is solvent; this is not a question of insolvency.
Lord Merlyn-Rees: My Lords, as another noble Lord who has a personal interest in these matters, I ask my noble friend what it means when he says that the FSA will watch matters. It will watch and do what? How can it intervene, and under what conditions?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the FSA has a contractual responsibility to protect the interests of policyholders. As I made clear in my first Answer, it will not hesitate to step in if that becomes necessary. However, I should again make clear that existing policyholders' contractual rights are not at risk. They will be protected. Equitable Life has funds of around £30 billion, which are adequate for meeting the contractual rights of existing policyholders but would not have been adequate if the company had continued to take on new business. That is why it closed its doors to new business but is not closing down.
The Earl of Northesk: My Lords, I am sure the Minister will recall his observation on 22nd June that,
"In the case of insurance companies, the regulator must have regard to the ability of the business to fulfil reasonable expectations of policyholders and potential policyholders".— [Official Report, 22/6/00: col. 517.]
In respect of Equitable Life, is that still the Government's position, or do they now subscribe to the reported view of an FSA spokesman that complaints of policyholders who believe they have been misled should be lodged with Equitable Life rather than with the authority?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Northesk, is good at reminding me of things that I said a long time ago. I am relieved that on this occasion I can confirm that what I said on 22nd June, which I had entirely forgotten, is 100 per cent correct. That does not conflict with the reported view of the FSA spokesman, though I have not seen it myself, that the first recourse of policyholders is to Equitable Life. But that does not mean that there is not recourse to take complaints to the Financial Services Authority if necessary.
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, I join with others in declaring an interest. Is not the noble Lord a little rash in giving the assurance that he did in relation to the adequacy of funds? Surely that depends on the actuarial assumptions made, particularly in regard to life expectancy. Is it not a fact that there are uncertainties which will continue to cause anxiety arid that no absolute commitment can be made?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord, is right in the sense that risk management issues are enormously complicated as are the actuarial considerations that have to be taken into account. But there is no reason to suppose that on any reasonable actuarial assumption Equitable Life will not be able to meet the reasonable expectations of its policyholders. At the same time, I have to say that although those reasonable expectations may have been based on a portfolio held by Equitable Life which consists of a mixture of equities, funds and gilts, the company will inevitably be forced to move further towards a portfolio of bonds and gilts rather than equities. That may reduce the expectations. To that extent, clearly some expectations will be disappointed.

Petition: Minimum Incomes Legislation
3.5 p.m.
Lord Morris of Manchester: My Lords, I beg leave to present a public Petition to the House from the Zacchaeus 2000 Trust:
"Your petitioners pray this House to urge the Secretary of State for Social Security to introduce legislation which will provide the Government with information about the minimum incomes which will maintain good health, provide an adequate diet and other essential needs for pregnant women, their babies, toddlers, adults, families with children and pensioners, and which will be taken into account when decisions are being made about levels of local and national taxes, benefits, the minimum wage, working families' tax credit, pensions, and by the courts when determining the level of fines, the repayment of debts and all deductions from benefits".
The Petition bears 7,000 signatures from organisations whose combined membership is over 7.8 million people.
Petition presented.

Business
Lord Carter: My Lords, immediately after the speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark, my noble friend Lord Sainsbury of Turville will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement which is being made in another place on the Vauxhall factory closure announcement.

Parliamentary Referendum Bill [H.L.]
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to establish the entitlement of each House of Parliament to resolve that a referendum be held on matters substantially affecting the constitution; and to make provision as to the conduct of such referendum; and for connected purposes. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Lord Campbell of Alloway.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Business of the House: Appointment of Chairmen of Committees and Select Committees
3.7 p.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Jay of Paddington): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That, unless any Lord objects, leave be given to the Chairman of Committees to move the five Motions standing in his name en bloc.—(Baroness Jay of Paddington.)
Lord Renton: My Lords, while again not opposing the Motion moved by the noble Baroness, can she say why the Committee of Selection decided that she was
366
to be the only Peeress on the Committee for Privileges? Would not the committee be greatly strengthened if, for example, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, my noble friend Lady Blatch, were also made a member of the committee?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, as I said to the noble Lord yesterday when he made a similar point on another Motion that I moved, this is not a House in which gender quotas are ever adopted. I take his point. But he will realise that much of the discussion as to who is to serve on individual committees is for the usual channels and therefore for the parties concerned. It is also a question of rotation. As I understand it, there are no vacancies on these committees to be replaced by either noble Lords or indeed noble Baronesses.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Deputy Chairmen of Committees House of Lords Offices: Select Committee
  Liaison: Select Committee
    Privileges: Select Committee

      Procedure of the House: Select Committee
      3.8 p.m.
      The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I beg to move the five Motions standing in my name on the Order Paper.
      Moved,
      Deputy Chairmen of Committees—That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following Lords be appointed as the panel of Lords to act as Deputy Chairmen of Committees for this Session:

      L. Aberdare,

      V. Allenby of Megiddo,

      L. Ampthill,

      L. Brougham and Vaux,

      L. Burnham,

      L. Carter,

      L. Cocks of Hartcliffe,

      B. Cox,

      L. Dean of Harptree,

      L. Elliott of Morpeth,

      L. Elton,

      V. Falkland,

      B. Gardner of Parkes,

      L. Geddes,

      L. Graham of Edmonton,

      L. Henley,

      B. Hooper,

      B. Lockwood,

      L. Lofthouse of Pontefract,

      367

      L. Lyell,

      L. McColl of Dulwich,

      L. McIntosh of Haringey,

      C. Mar,

      L. Methuen,

      L. Murton of Lindisfarne,

      B. Nicol,

      V. Oxfuird,

      B. Serota,

      V. Simon,

      L. Skelmersdale,

      L. Strabolgi,

      B. Turner of Camden.

      House of Lords Offices—That a Select Committee on the House of Lords Offices be appointed and that, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following Lords together with the Chairman of Committees be named of the committee:

      B. Blatch,

      L. Carter,

      L. Chalfont,

      L. Colwyn,

      L. Craig of Radley,

      L. Dholakia,

      L. Dixon,

      L. Elton,

      L. Gilbert,

      L. Harris of Greenwich,

      L. Henley,

      B. Hilton of Eggardon,

      L. Hunt of Wirral,

      L. Irvine of Lairg (Lord Chancellor),

      B. Jay of Paddington,

      L. Laming,

      L. Marsh,

      B. Oppenheim-Barnes,

      Bp. Oxford,

      L. Renfrew of Kaimsthorn,

      L. Rodgers of Quarry Bank,

      B. Seccombe,

      B. Serota,

      L. Shutt of Greetland,

      L. Strathclyde,

      L. Tordoff,

      L. Williams of Mostyn.

      Liaison Committee—That a Select Committee be appointed to advise the House on the resources required for Select Committee work and to allocate resources between Select Committees; to review the Select Committee work of the House; to consider requests for ad hoc committees and report to the House with recommendations; to ensure effective co-ordination between the two Houses; and to consider the availability of Lords to serve on committees;
      That as proposed by the Committee of Selection the following Lords together with the Chairman of Committees be named of the committee:

      L. Clinton-Davis,

      V. Colville of Culross,

      L. Craig of Radley,

      B. Jay of Paddington,

      B. Pitkeathley,

      368

      L. Rodgers of Quarry Bank,

      L. Strathclyde,

      L. Wigoder,

      B. Wilcox,

      B. Young.

      That the committee have leave to report from time to time;
      That the committee have power to appoint specialist advisers.
      Privileges—That a Committee for Privileges be appointed and that, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following Lords together with the Chairman of Committees and any four Lords of Appeal be named of the committee:

      L. Allen of Abbeydale,

      L. Carter,

      L. Cledwyn of Penrhos,

      L. Craig of Radley,

      V. Cranborne,

      L. Graham of Edmonton,

      L. Henley,

      B. Jay of Paddington,

      L. Mackay of Clashfern,

      L. Marsh,

      L. Mayhew of Twysden,

      L. Rodgers of Quarry Bank,

      L. Strabolgi,

      L. Strathclyde,

      L. Wigoder;

      That the committee have power to appoint sub-committees and that such sub-committees have power to appoint their own chairman;
      That the committee have power to co-opt any Lord for the purposes of serving on any sub-committee.
      Procedure of the House—That a Select Committee on Procedure of the House be appointed and that, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following Lords together with the Chairman of Committees be named of the committee:

      V. Allenby of Megiddo,

      B. Blatch,

      V. Bledisloe,

      L. Burlison,

      L. Carter,

      L. Clarke of Hampstead,

      L. Cope of Berkeley,

      L. Craig of Radley,

      L. Crickhowell,

      L. Denham,

      B. Gould of Potternewton,

      B. Hanham,

      L. Harris of Greenwich,

      L. Henley,

      L. Irvine of Lairg (Lord Chancellor),

      B. Jay of Paddington,

      L. Kimball,

      B. Lockwood,

      L. Mancroft,

      L. Rodgers of Quarry Bank,

      L. Roper,

      L. Shepherd,

      369

      V. Simon,

      L. Strabolgi,

      L. Strathclyde,

      L. Tordoff,

      L. Trefgarne,

      L. Waddington,

      L. Williams of Mostyn.—( The Chairman of Committees.)

      On Question, Motion agreed to.

Address in Reply to Her Majesty's Most Gracious Speech
3.9 p.m.
Debate resumed on the Motion moved on Wednesday last—namely, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty as follows:
"Most Gracious Sovereign—We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled, beg leave to thank Your Majesty for the most gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament."
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the Government, in the past three and a half years, have laid the foundation stones of a strong economy with high and stable levels of growth and employment. Those are also the foundation of our commitment to strong communities with a sense of responsibility and to investing in modern services which will meet the needs of the individuals and families in those communities.
As my noble friend the Leader of the House said on the first day of our debate, the heart of our programme in the gracious Speech is an emphasis on fighting crime and on improving health and social services. My noble friend reminded us that the insecurity people feel about their lives is too often centred on fear of crime and fear of ill health and the treatment they may receive.
This Government have addressed the economic insecurities inherited from the previous two decades and have begun to make a real difference in reducing insecurity about levels of crime and the health service. We are not complacent, but real gains are being felt from our long-term focus on the economic foundations and investing in services. They include falling burglary numbers, shorter hospital in-patient waiting lists, smaller class sizes for primary schoolchildren, higher literacy scores for our children, the lowest inflation rates for 30 years, an end to long-term unemployment for young people and a minimum wage and other measures to help those on low earnings.
All those gains impact on people's sense of security about their lives and those of their families. Our programme for the next year, set out in the gracious Speech, builds on those gains with further measures to tackle crime and improve health and social services.
370
We have a distinguished list of speakers for today's debate. I warmly welcome the noble Lord, Lord Kirkham, who will be making his maiden speech.
First, I turn to our measures to tackle crime. Increased economic opportunity must be matched by growing social responsibility. The Government do not believe that we can reduce crime by diktat from Whitehall. We know that we have to fight crime together. Building strong communities is a job for everyone in the community. That is at the heart of the five Bills announced last week. They will give greater powers to the police, carry forward our modernisation of the criminal justice system and bear down on those who threaten the community with criminal and antisocial behaviour.
The criminal justice and police Bill will enable the police to deal with crime and disorder effectively. It will give the police powers to issue fixed penalty notices for offences arising from disorderly conduct, such as threatening, abusive or insulting behaviour and causing criminal damage such as graffiti. It will give powers for the immediate closure of licensed premises where disorder is occurring and to prohibit public drinking. It will also modernise other police powers and the training of the police.
The Private Security Industry Bill will provide for the regulation of the private security industry in England and Wales. Its aim is to drive up standards in an industry that has a key role to play in tackling and preventing crime, under the supervision of a new security industry authority.
The Vehicles (Crime) Bill will support the tremendous achievements of the police in reducing vehicle crime. Among other measures, it will introduce statutory regulation of the motor salvage industry to make it difficult for criminals to dispose of stolen vehicles. It will protect the motorist from car theft and protect legitimate salvage traders. It will also enable the recycling of money from speed camera fines to spend on more speed cameras to improve safety on our roads. We shall also continue our modernisation of the criminal justice system with a Criminal Justice (Mode of Trial) Bill to remove the ability to elect Crown Court trial in either-way cases in England and Wales.
Finally, the profits of crime will be the target of the draft proceeds of crime Bill, which, among other measures, will provide for the establishment of a national confiscation agency, which will be dedicated to tracking down and depriving criminals of their unlawful earnings.
The measures that I have set out will continue our programme to make our communities safer and more secure. Communities will also be strengthened by our proposals to invest in modern health and social care services. We set out our proposals in the NHS plan in July and we shall introduce legislation in this Session to take many of those ideas forward.
Those proposals continue the long-term programme of investment and reform of health and social services on which we embarked in 1997. Since then we have abolished the internal market and established new primary care groups and trusts to bring together

371
family doctors, nurses and social services to develop local primary care-based services on longer-term agreements and national guidelines.
We have begun—not completed, but begun—a war on waiting for NHS treatment. We have kept our manifesto commitment to reduce in-patient waiting lists by 100,000 from the level that we inherited. At the last count, the figure is more than 130,000 below that level.
We have kept our commitment that no patient will wait more than 18 months for in-patient treatment. We have kept our commitment to guarantee women with suspected breast cancer an appointment with a specialist within two weeks. We said that that guarantee would be extended to all patients with suspected cancer by the end of this year. Thanks to the hard work and dedication of NHS staff, I am happy to say that it has been.
We have kept our commitment to launch a programme for the comprehensive modernisation of the NHS. It includes the biggest hospital building programme in the history of the service, with 38 schemes approved for construction. Three new hospitals have already opened this year at Carlisle, Gravesham and South Buckinghamshire, with another at Rochdale to follow. Five more will open next year and nine the year after.
We have also set up NHS Direct to provide 24-hour telephone access to health advice from nurses. The service now covers the whole of England and Wales, providing the public with the help that they need to care for themselves at home or to direct them quickly to another service if they need it. We introduced free eye tests for people aged over 60 from April last year. In the first year, more than 2.5 million older people took advantage of free eye testing.
We have begun to tackle the health inequalities that we inherited on taking office by setting tough targets for the reduction of deaths from cancer, heart disease, accidents and suicides. This year we have published a national cancer plan and a national service framework for coronary heart disease to continue the drive towards those targets.
Those measures have begun our transformation of health and social services for the people of this country, but they are only a beginning. We will not be content until the NHS provides the best available modern care for patients as and when they need it and until health and social services can provide integrated care at local level.
The NHS plan published in July contained our practical step-by-step reforms to transform the NHS over the next decade. Under the proposals outlined in the plan, there will he 7,000 extra beds in hospitals and intermediate care, more than 100 new hospitals by 2010 and 500 new one-stop primary care centres, more than 3,000 premises modernised, 7,500 more consultants and 2,000 more GPs, 20,000 extra nurses, 6,500 extra therapists and 1,000 more medical school places on top of the 1,100 already announced.
372
That will be reflected in many ways for patients. They will have a guarantee of seeing a GP within 48 hours. The maximum waiting time for a routine hospital appointment will be reduced to three months and the maximum waiting time for in-patient treatment will come down from 18 months to six months within five years, followed by a further reduction to three months. That represents an end to the waiting culture in our service.
There will be a big expansion in cancer screening programmes. Rapid access chest pain clinics will be established and waiting times for heart operations will be reduced. There will also be more than 300 rapid reaction mental health teams. We shall shortly publish a White Paper with our proposals for modernising the Mental Health Act.
All that will be underpinned by the biggest sustained growth in resources in the history of the NHS—a 6.1 per cent real terms growth over four years, compared with 2.6 per cent real terms growth over the last five years of the previous government. That will mean a 35 per cent real terms increase by 2004 compared with 1998–99.
The benefits from that investment in vital health services will be taken forward by the health and social care Bill. It will unlock £ I billion of new investment in family doctor premises in a public/private partnership through NHS Lift. That will allow the refurbishment of 3,000 family doctor premises, with a particular benefit to inner cities, by renovating, owning or leasing new or existing buildings.
The Bill will also introduce incentives to improve the performance of the NHS by giving greater freedom to the best performing trusts and greater support and intervention for poorly performing NHS organisations. A performance fund, building to £500 million, will be distributed annually on top of standard health authority funding.
We will extend prescribing rights to break down unnecessary professional barriers and deliver better care to patients. We will introduce new and improved arrangements for representing the interests of patients and to provide for local accountability. We will enable the establishment of new care trusts, integrating local health and social care organisations, to provide better seamless care for patients, especially older people. We will provide free nursing care in nursing homes, a measure which will benefit about 35,000 older people each year.
Our Bill to modernise further health and social care will be a significant step towards our strategic goal of rebuilding services to provide the best modern care focused around the needs of the patient. But, as I have been reminded in this House on more than one occasion, health prevention is always better than cure for diseases which are avoidable. And in this Session, we will bring before the House legislation for one of the most significant steps in health prevention that this country has seen.
Approximately 120,000 people die each year in the United Kingdom because they smoke. It is the prime cause of cancer and heart disease and causes many

373
other fatal diseases and chronic illnesses. It is the greatest single cause of premature illness and death in the United Kingdom.
The Government have a comprehensive programme to help smokers to give up and to encourage young people not to start. An advertising ban must be one element of the programme if it is to be as effective as it can be. Our aim is clear; it is to reduce the percentage of the population who smoke, thereby improving and lengthening people's lives.
Other countries—most notably Norway, Finland and New Zealand—have seen a fall in smoking following a ban on advertising which cannot be attributed to other factors. The tobacco advertising and promotion Bill will deliver our manifesto commitment to ban the advertising and promotion of tobacco in this country. We had hoped that that could be achieved across the European Union through directives and we continue to work with European colleagues to that end. But rather than wait longer, we will take action through legislation for the UK. All the devolved administrations support UK-wide legislation on this issue.
The programme this Session will in time have a significant impact on people's sense of security in their communities; on the quality, timeliness and responsiveness of the health services; and on the prevention of premature illness and death. It is a programme to improve the quality of life of all the people in this country and I commend it to your Lordships.
3.22 p.m.
Earl Howe: My Lords, it is a considerable pleasure, among today's distinguished array of speakers, to look forward to the maiden speech of my noble friend Lord Kirkham. He is regarded by people of all political persuasions as a beacon of inspiration to young people. I suspect that his speech will tell us something of his life and background. Whether or not I am right about that, I suspect that I shall not be alone in hoping that my noble friend will prove a regular contributor to our debates, in particular those on the needs and wants of young people. That is an issue on which he can speak with authority.
The recent passage of the Children (Leaving Care) Act through this House has brought the subject of children leaving care into sharp focus. It would have been especially good in the current Session to have welcomed a Bill which modernised our laws on adoption. However, we understand that a Bill on that issue remains some way off.
It is something of an irony that the only Bill mentioned in this part of the gracious Speech which relates directly to children—namely, the Bill which extends the power of the Children's Commissioner for Wales—was announced by Her Majesty only days after the Parliament Act was used to force into law a measure which reduced the protection that the law afforded to children over the age of 16. If there were one event during the past year which crystallised my
374
views on the vexed issue of the age of homosexual consent it was the publication of the Waterhouse report into the appalling catalogue of sexual abuse of children in care in Wales.
Nevertheless, the Government have taken their firm stance on the age of homosexual consent in the interests of equality and because they do not believe it is right to be judgmental on a matter which, as they see it, relates largely to the way in which private citizens lead their own lives. That is why I cannot help finding it odd, to put it at its mildest, that at a time when rural communities are buckling under the strain of the worst crisis in agriculture for 60 years the Government should choose to bring to the top of their parliamentary timetable, ahead of any measure on health or law and order, a Bill designed to bring about a ban on hunting with hounds.
The Government have made great play about their concern for communities. We need be in no doubt of the damage to rural communities, both social and financial, that a ban on hunting would bring. The electorate can draw its own conclusions on the Government's sense of priorities, but it can also draw its own conclusion on exactly which minorities and whose private lives the Government believe we ought to be judgmental about.
With every ban proposed in legislation, the question that we must also ask is whether it is justified in a tolerant and free society. Since this Government came to office, Parliament has been asked to approve bans on a number of activities which were previously legal. Now it is the turn of hunting with dogs. It is also the turn of tobacco advertising. I do not propose to make a Second Reading speech today on tobacco advertising, but I suggest that when the Bill comes before your Lordships we shall need to juxtapose two sets of questions. The first set will relate to the strength of the evidence which connects tobacco advertising to the prevalence of smoking. The second set must surely bear on whether in a free society it is justified to impose a blanket ban on the promotion of a legal substance.
Just as doctors believe in evidence-based medicine, so surely it is incumbent on legislators to believe in evidence-based policy. I am not sure about the extent to which the Labour Party's manifesto pledge on tobacco advertising owed its origins to scientific evidence or to an instinctive urge to regulate and exercise control from the centre. However, we on this side of the House will want the Government to convince us that a ban on tobacco advertising will have a direct and measurable impact on smoking prevalence. We shall also want to be convinced that the Bill as drafted will not leave open a range of exploitable loopholes, such as sponsorship and product placement, which would serve seriously to weaken the effectiveness of the legislation. However, having said all that, I undertake that we on the Opposition Benches will retain an open mind on the issue and listen very carefully to what the Government have to say.
I mentioned what I regard as the partiality of the Government for exercising control from the centre. We see that tendency in evidence in their whole

375
approach to the National Health Service. The NHS is an industry with 1 million employees. It is an industry whose sheer size, if mirrored in the commercial world, would preclude any attempt to micro-manage from the centre. Yet time and again, whether through the woefully misguided waiting list initiative or the abuse of the appointments system so graphically highlighted in the report by Dame Rennie Fritchie, the Government continue to interpose themselves between managers and hospitals and between doctors and patients. If we cast our eyes down the list of health-related measures foreshadowed in the gracious Speech, we see exactly the same tendency emerging afresh.
One example of it comes with the formation of care trusts. I do not believe that anyone can seriously argue that the closer integration of health and social services is a misguided objective. We supported the measures in the Health Act 1999 which were designed to give effect to that aim. But the background note issued by the Government on care trusts is very telling. The first paragraph states that,
"Care Trusts would be largely set up voluntarily",
in response to local needs. However, in the final paragraph one is told:
"The Bill would provide the Secretary of State with the power to require a care trust to be established".
My mind goes back to our debates last year on the Health Bill when the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, took trouble to assure the House—I paraphrase her words—that she could not conceive of circumstances in which the formation of a primary care trust would take place without the backing of a majority of doctors in the area affected. She accepted my point that for a new venture of this kind to work properly, the professionals involved had to have some sense of ownership of it. Yet since the passing of the legislation the Government have done exactly what they led us to believe they would not do; namely, to approve the formation of more than one PCT against the express wishes of a majority of doctors in the area.
As to care trusts, the danger of forcing through a marriage of health and social services is one to which the BMA has drawn attention; namely, that a forced marriage does not necessarily lead the parties involved to live in harmony with one another. Often the result is just the opposite, as it may well prove to be in this case, and the marriage brings about the union of two very different cultures.
Both the BMA and the King's Fund have had some interesting comments to make about another matter on which the Minister touched: the introduction of a national health performance fund. We understand that the operation of the fund will depend on a traffic light system which will rate all NHS organisations green, yellow or red. The best performing organisations will have an automatic right to payment from the fund, while those which are judged yellow and red must agree special plans or have their spending supervised centrally. The King's Fund has pointed out that the traffic light system risks giving an unfair
376
picture of underlying performance, because hospital trusts coded red will tend to be concentrated in the most deprived areas.
The BMA makes a different point and says that it could be,
"seriously counter-productive to label a hospital red as this would damage recruitment and retention of staff".
I suggest that the Government would do well to take those warnings seriously.
Interestingly enough, the BMA added that its members had strong reservations about the traffic light system as it contained—wait for it—
"too much emphasis on micro-management from the centre".
Just so. I am far from sure that the NHS performance fund is a conceptually well-founded idea, and I look forward to exploring the proposal in greater depth when the Bill comes before us.
I shall also require a very great deal of persuasion—I doubt that I can be persuaded—that the abolition of community health councils can conceivably be right for the NHS. It would perhaps be discourteous of me to repeat everything that I said in the recent excellent debate about CHCs initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey. However, perhaps I should re-emphasise one or two points. The key characteristic of CHCs is that they are independent of the NHS. As a result, they are trusted in their role as watchdogs and they are also trusted by patients to act as neutral advocates on their behalf. To replace community health councils with patient advocates who are both employees of the NHS and located within NHS trust premises is to dilute, if not negate, that crucial quality of independence on which patients rely. That cannot possibly be conducive to greater patient empowerment.
Only last Session the Prime Minister personally endorsed the work of community health councils in a letter to the South Durham CHC. On 15th November he told another place that the proposals to abolish CHCs were being consulted upon. However, one CHC has recently written to my party to say:
"We are gratified that William Hague has … raised the question during Prime Minister's Question Time. The truth of the matter is [that] there has been no consultation either before or since the NHS Plan was drafted or published… We are concerned that the Government have announced the intention to abolish CHCs as a cynical attempt to silence any negative publicity during the winter and in the lead-up to the general election as they know they are most vulnerable in regard to the NHS. What better way to deflect attention away from any shortcomings than by silencing the only independent monitor that the public have for the NHS?".
That letter came from none other than the South Durham and Weardale Community Health Council which covers Sedgefield, the Prime Minister's constituency.
We embark on what is likely to be a curtailed legislative programme at a time when the NHS faces up to another winter. We all hope, no one more than myself, that the planning and preparation undertaken by the NHS in anticipation of winter pressures will prove to be effective. However, the Prime Minister has issued a prudent warning that not all may go smoothly between now and next spring. I doubt whether many

377
of us need such a warning. In my own area, the Chilterns, Wycombe Hospital has for the first time been obliged to close its accident and emergency department on repeated occasions during the autumn because of a shortage of beds elsewhere in the hospital. The winter crisis in Wycombe and many hospitals up and down the country is no longer confined to the winter months.
It is sad, but perhaps unsurprising, that of all the reasons commonly cited for this situation there is not one for which the Government appear willing to accept even a degree of responsibility. Yet for me at least there is absolutely no doubt that one of the principal reasons for the pressures experienced by hospitals can be laid directly at the Government's door; namely, the growing shortage of beds in the intermediate care sector. In 1999 alone, 760 care homes closed their doors with the loss of 15,000 beds. It is no good the Government saying, as they are wont to do, that there are surplus beds in the system. That may be true across the country as a whole, but it is not true in the home counties, the West Midlands, North Yorkshire and many other areas.
The main reasons for the contraction of the sector are twofold: the uncertainty brought about by the Government's threat of compulsory, but as yet undefined, minimum standards for care homes, and the fact that local authorities have been obliged to continue to pay fees to care homes at a level which has not kept pace with the increase in costs. Chai Patel, chief executive of Westminster Health Care, one of the largest providers of healthcare for the elderly, pointed out that,
"it costs more to stay in a Travelodge than in a nursing home. But in a nursing home we don't just provide a bed—we provide full care. And we are expected to do it for £47 a day".
There was no crisis in the care homes sector when the Government came to office; now there is in many parts of the country, and it is this Government's doing.
In looking forward, as I do, to constructive engagement with the Government in the forthcoming legislative programme, I am sure that we all wish to express gratitude to the doctors, nurses, management and staff of the NHS in their unstinting efforts to maintain standards of service of which we can be proud.
3.38 p.m.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I join with the Minister and the noble Earl, Lord Howe, in looking forward to the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Kirkham.
I shall not engage in a commentary on the two preceding speeches of the Minister and the noble Earl. However, I place on record my total disagreement with the noble Earl's view on one particular piece of legislation. I believe that by invoking the Parliament Act the Government took a very principled stance in lowering the age of homosexual consent to 16. We on these Benches commend that legislation and believe that, contrary to the views of the noble Earl, it will be a liberating influence of great benefit to young people.
378
With Christmas so close, I do not believe that it is out of order to recommend some holiday reading to noble Lords. The book that I have in mind is Andrew Rawnsley's Servants of the People—the inside story of new Labour. The book is an authoritative account of the first years of this Government. The following passage, which deals with the events of 14th July 1998, is particularly interesting in the light of today's debate:
"With an infant school as symbolic scenery for his speech. Blair described it as a turning point… 'This is the biggest ever increase in resources for education and health: £40 billion over three years'.
The people would actually wait longer for delivery. These increases were nothing like as significant as they had been made to sound, and in as much as there was extra money. it would not begin to kick in until nearly a year later…
This phoney total had been manufactured by rolling up the increases so that the first year rise was counted three times and the second year's twice. Strip out this creative accountancy and account for inflation, then the actual sum was much smaller. Allowing for the two-year freeze, by some measures real spending would barely compare with the Conservatives' in the previous Parliament. As this reality gradually became evident, it fed suspicion and cynicism about all government announcements, genuine or not".
The legacy of that still lives on today in public scepticism about government pronouncements on the health service. No wonder there has been so much controversy recently about the target figures in the National Plan for nurse recruitment. The Government are still receiving the backwash from their failure to invest properly in the health service in their early years of office and their overexciting of expectations that early improvements would be made. With regard to the additional resources coming through this year, the medical director of Epsom and St Helier Trust said:
"If only somebody had given us the cash a year ago. At this level to receive a cheque is great. But what the hell am I going to do with it?".
It is hardly a surprise, therefore, that last week's MORI/BMA poll demonstrates that despite the National Plan and the announcement in the March Budget of significant additional resources for the NHS, there continues to be a steady erosion of public confidence in the National Health Service. In particular, there are still significant worries about winter pressures and the lack of capacity.
Those saying that they are fairly or very dissatisfied with the NHS have risen from 17 per cent to 28 per cent, while those satisfied have fallen from 72 per cent to 58 per cent; only 13 per cent are now very satisfied, which is a fall from 24 per cent; and 94 per cent said that the NHS is in need of much or some improvement. In addition, it is clear from the same opinion research that the public are beginning to realise that the shortcomings in the NHS are the responsibility of the Labour Government.
The fact is that the Government, despite the further funds allocated this year, have done too little too late to address the key issue of capacity in the health service. Even on government spending plans, the share of GDP devoted to health will be 7.5 per cent in 2004 compared with an EU average of 8.7 per cent. We have half the number of hospital beds per 1,000 population as in France or Germany.

379
As regards outcomes for many cancers, such as prostate, testicular and breast cancer, we are at the bottom of the European league tables alongside Estonia and Poland. There is still enormous doubt whether the NHS will see the winter through in good order without media horror stories of trolley waits, neglect and cancelled operations.
Recent surveys by my own party and the RCN demonstrate that there is a current shortage of 22,000 nurses—5,000 greater than last year—with London particularly hard hit. Many more recruits are needed because of those retiring in the near future. The RCN predicts that there will be a shortfall of some 50,000 nurses. As Ministers admit, we have to recruit nurses from abroad, especially from the developing world. At the same time we are spending some £350 million on agency nurses. We have a massive shortage of midwives and many maternity units are threatened with closure.
The Government have started to address the shortage of consultants in a number of areas. They have increased the number of doctors in training and they have set targets in the National Plan for nurse and doctor recruitment. But the lead times for recruitment and training are extremely long. Those issues should have been addressed on day one of the new Labour Government. Furthermore, there are huge shortages in the professions allied to medicine, such as occupational, speech and language therapists and pathology technicians, without whom the national screening programmes cannot be carried out.
The situation with regard to beds is, if anything, worse. Not only are there too few acute beds, despite claims that these have increased over the past year, but those acute beds are blocked in many areas by too few beds in the community. Last year some 13,000 care home beds were lost as care home owners decided to leave their businesses. Some 21,000 beds have been lost over the past two years. The cause is not the new standards, as some will claim, but under-funding of social services budgets. The 445 critical care beds which have been provided over the past year are welcome but more are needed.
Against that backdrop it is clear that the Government have little chance of demonstrating much more than modest work in progress at the next general election. How much should we welcome that work in progress? Are the correct actions being taken to restore the NHS to the premier league? The Liberal Democrats generally supported the thrust of the National Plan and in particular its patient-oriented approach.
We welcome and support some of the contents of the Queen's Speech this year. We welcome strongly the proposals to ban tobacco advertising in the UK in the face of the legal action of the tobacco companies to prevent the EU directive being adopted. It is quite amazing that tobacco companies such as Philip Morris are only now admitting in public that their products are addictive and cause death. Those products cause 120,000 deaths each year. I hope that in that legislation there will be no Formula 1 exemption.
380
We welcome the creation of care trusts to provide care in the community in an integrated way between local authorities and primary care professionals. We have long urged greater integration between them. We welcome and wholly support legislation to allow the extension of prescribing rights. It is vital that decisions on the categories of those entitled to prescribe are made quickly and help to use the expertise within primary care to best effect.
Furthermore, in principle we welcome moves to improve the performance of hospital trusts; but will green light status be largely confined to southern health trusts? Will there be a north/south divide as many managers and clinicians fear? Will there be too much centralisation of decisions? We must await the legislation. We also welcome other recent developments: the intention to create a national cancer institute; the impact of NICE in beginning to end postcode prescribing in certain areas; and the debut of the Commission for Health Improvement as a valuable instrument to improve corporate governance.
However, despite its pre-election nature, there are more health minuses than pluses in the Queen's Speech. The Bill to modernise the NHS will provide for the abolition of CHCs after 26 years of useful life. It will also create patients' forums and patients' advocates. The latter are welcome in principle but they will operate under the auspices of the hospital trusts. How will anyone regard them as independent? Why cannot reformed CHCs be given responsibility to run them?
As the Minister mentioned, there will also be provisions to allow PFI for primary care. In its report on the Queen's Speech The Times, with unconscious irony, said:
"It aims to do for the family doctor what the PFI is doing for hospital building".
There is a huge need for better premises for surgeries, particularly in inner-city areas. But all the evidence to date is that PFI in the acute sector is providing fewer beds at greater cost than would have been available under conventional public financing. To add insult to injury, the process of evaluation of PFI is opaque. True comparisons between PFI and public financing are buried beneath a welter of suggestive factors. With an unprecedented Buclget surplus, why cannot primary care facilities be funded by straightforward public funding?
It is with regard to long-term care that the Government's proposals in the Queen's Speech are truly disappointing. Stewart Sutherland's Royal Commission report on long-term care of the elderly was a milestone in the development of policy towards older people, and yet the Government have chosen to pay for nursing rather than personal care. As a result we will still have many of the problems of definition and extreme financial hardship that we have seen to date. What a contrast with Scotland which seems set to adopt the Royal Commission's proposals, which would place a very high priority on allowing older people to retain independence despite ill health; that means paying for personal care.

381
There are some missing ingredients in the Queen's Speech: first, the failure to include primary legislation to change time limits and disability thresholds for compensation for vaccine damage, despite a clear government pledge to that effect; and, secondly, the issue of age discrimination. The issue of discrimination against older people in the health service will not conveniently go away. A recent survey conducted by Age Concern, "Speaking Out", about the way in which complaints about older people are dealt with amplifies further the findings of previous studies that there must be a proper complaint system. There are some heartrending anecdotes in Age Concern's survey, but the attached statement sums up the situation:
"It was only because I spoke out that I got the treatment I needed. But most older people won't, and that worries me a lot. Many people of my generation see doctors as gods and would never contradict them. Or they're just frightened".
The anecdotes in Age Concern's survey emphasise, as we have done on every possible occasion, including in the debate on last year's Queen's Speech, that there must be a statutory duty on public authorities in the NHS not to discriminate against older people. Are the Government aware of how much they are letting down older people in the health service?
There are other omissions from the Queen's Speech. I note the Minister's promise of a White Paper on mental health. Mental health is a subject of which the Government make much when they are in popular mode, yet it features nowhere in the Queen's Speech. It is high time that care in the community was not only resourced properly but that mental health service users are given the benefit of a revised Mental Health Act. Their rights need bringing up to date in accordance with the Human Rights Act. They should be given at all times the right to proper assessment and treatment.
Such treatments should include the right to access to modern atypical drugs necessary for treating conditions such as schizophrenia. NICE is shortly to carry out an assessment of these new drugs. We welcome that. But I hope that this will be a fast process and I hope that NICE will also look at the impact of older drugs as well and make the appropriate comparisons as they affect patients, in particular the side-effects, which have such an impact on patients' willingness to take them and hence on the risk posed to the community.
Finally, the next few months will be vital for the shape of the regulation of doctors, nurses, midwives, health visitors and professions allied to medicine. That is no longer subject to primary legislation as a result of last year's Health Act and the shape of regulation of the various professions can now be determined by Order in Council and passed by affirmative vote. The General Medical Council is clearly making good progress, with the introduction of its fast-track procedures and changes to its committee structures and their composition, and further valuable reforms are in the pipeline. However, there are signs that the Government are inclined to minimise the differences between other health professions, such as midwives and nurses and the professions allied to medicine, and
382
prefer to lump them together when considering such matters as standards of conduct and education. That is not a helpful way forward as far as concerns most of those professions,
I hope that the Minister will carefully heed the very strong views of the professions in drafting the new regulations. I join the noble Earl, Lord Howe, in paying tribute to all the health professions. The morale and job satisfaction of our health professions is key to improvements in the health service, and the way in which they are regulated goes straight to the heart of both those aspects.
3.52 p.m.
Lord Kirkham: My Lords, 56 years ago—56 years ago tomorrow to be more precise—a child was born in a hospital on the outskirts of Doncaster, South Yorkshire. I am sure that several children were born that day. I want to talk about just this one. The healthy bouncing baby boy did not stay very long with his natural mother and within a few weeks was adopted.
The adoptive couple had no children. They were Tom, a coalminer and verger of the local church, and Elsie, a housewife. They lived in the mining village of Edlington just a few miles away. They did not have a great deal to offer on a material basis. They lived in a typical mining village, in rented terraced property with an outside toilet and no bathroom. However, benefits did exist in the form of no telephone, no television—I am not sure whether television had then been invented—and a tremendous amount of love and affection.
We all know that growing up can be a hard and tortuous journey and all young people are very vulnerable as they make that journey. But Tom and Elsie helped a great deal. They provided the environment, they set the standards and, by example, taught the values that allowed Graham—that is what they called their son—a fair chance to enjoy life and fulfil any potential he might have.
I know Graham quite well—I think I know him quite well—and I believe wholeheartedly that because he had someone to look after him, to counsel, protect and direct him, to support and care for him, and to love him, he did grow up okay—arguably. Certainly, he was never excluded from school, he was never involved in drugs or violent crime, and he never became a suicide statistic. Noble Lords may not know that suicide is the second biggest cause of death among young men. Indeed, that lucky and privileged upbringing ensured that Graham—now Lord Kirkham—enjoys the privilege and pleasure of addressing your Lordships today. I am quite sure that Elsie and Tom—my mum and dad—would have been very proud.
But what is the purpose and relevance of all this background? I can say that it is not to elicit a gift on my birthday tomorrow, although anything I am fortunate enough to receive will be graciously accepted. Rather it is to elicit your Lordships' support in helping to provide care, protection and direction, if we cannot make it love, to those less fortunate than I was. I think

383
in particular of those young people in local authority care; the children society does not seem to want to hear about; the children we seem to concern ourselves with only at the time of those increasingly regular high profile media headlines and crises.
I want your Lordships' help and support in providing a better deal for all those children and young people whose voices, not amplified by having a vote, are often unheard or are perhaps simply ignored, although it is really hard to hear anything when your head is buried in the sand. Over the years, government have not been good at dealing with the needs, interests and concerns of young people, particularly those in care. We have to get better at listening to them and to those who speak on their behalf, or be prepared to pay an increasingly heavy price.
Our young people, be they in family homes, living alone or in local authority care, will clearly determine the shape of our society and the quality of our lives and those of our children and grandchildren in the future. These young people are tomorrow's secretaries, carpet fitters and hairdressers; tomorrow's leaders, doctors and lawyers; even politicians, pop stars and captains of industry—tomorrow's pimps, drug pushers and muggers. If we want to improve the ratio of one to the other, we had better do something about it right now.
The moral case is overwhelming—a "no-brainer", as the kids might say. But if we remain unconvinced of the moral case, then on the proven business concept that prevention is better than cure—in this instance, prevention is cheaper than cure—we should act now. The neglect of investment in the care system is not a financial saving. It simply transfers a bigger cost to another system—it is called prison.
Perhaps I may give a few statistics. Compared to the general population, children are four times as likely to be unemployed when they have been in care; they are 60 times more likely to be homeless when they have been in care; over two-thirds of child prostitutes have been in care; and a quarter of the adult prison population, as children, have been in care.
I do not think that we or the state have been very caring. Do you, my Lords? I do not think that we or the state have been very care-ful or wise. I checked the definition of "care" in the Library. "Care" is defined as,
"troubled or concerned; to have regard or consideration; to provide help or comfort".
Even on my very best day of self-deceit, I am unable to see how society as a whole can tick any of those boxes. To paraphrase St Ignatius, the founder of the Jesuits:
"Give me a child to the age of seven and I will give you the man".
I agree with that. I believe that environment is at least as important as genes.
Even at my tender age I know—I have seen it and experienced it—that if you can get into the lives of young people early enough, you can make a difference. It is not just the difference that helps to sustain a civil society, fundamental as that is, but the difference to move forward. So let us help to give these children a
384
purpose in life; let us unlock the huge potential that in so many cases is, at best, probably repressed or, more generally, is negatively focused.
While I was trying to get some background for these few words, I heard people describe our children's homes as the scandal of our society, calling them the primary schools for prisons. Two weeks ago on the Radio 4 programme, "File on Four", they were even portrayed as recruiting grounds for child prostitutes. Perhaps they are the scandal of our society, and perhaps they are not. However, it is certain that those in our care are the most disadvantaged, distressed and alienated of any group.
However, in my view, the good news is that if we and the Government decide to do something, I believe that something can be done. The tide can be turned. This Government and the last government have proved that in education. By focusing attention and money, standards can be improved and headway can be made. A similar effort, focus and investment would do the same for our children in care. I think that we should do that because they desperately need help.
Since my introduction, I have spent 13 months sitting on these luxurious, deep-buttoned, diamond-pleated Connolly hide Benches with beautiful hand nailing, before making my maiden speech. My noble friend Lord Ashcroft took four weeks. I have been entertained and educated. As noble Lords may imagine, over that time I have experienced the full gamut of emotion, from sheer pleasure to frustration and anger. I think that on one occasion I was momentarily a little bored, but that was entirely my fault. My principal contribution has been to rise as instructed, to walk across the House and to cast my vote. That mattered nought because no Division that I voted in was either won or lost by one vote. But all that has changed. After today, I have the authority to speak, the desire to lobby and the clear and avowed intention to make a difference to the lives and futures of young people in care, to change their world. But I know, and noble Lords know, that passion alone is not enough. Please, please, will you help me?
4.2 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Southwark: My Lords, perhaps I may first congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Kirkham, on a fine and moving maiden speech and wish him many happy returns for tomorrow. The noble Lord's reputation in supporting the Prince's Trust is well known. That experience, together with his own life experience, some of which he has shared with us today, has well equipped him to speak on matters of children and youth, in particular children and young people in care. The noble Lord has given your Lordships' House the first of what I trust will be many interesting, informative and challenging speeches. I hope that it will not be another 13 months before we hear the next speech from the noble Lord.
I wish to follow the noble Lord by speaking on a subject which very much affects young people; namely, the matter of law and order, in particular on inner-city estates. I speak as a bishop whose diocese probably

385
contains more such estates than any other in Britain, including the estate of North Peckham, some five miles down the road, where Damilola Taylor was recently murdered. It will not surprise noble Lords to learn that it is in that context that I shall review the proposals contained in the Queen's Speech to tackle crime and disorder.
Perhaps I should first put on the record the fine work undertaken by the head and staff of Oliver Goldsmith Primary School, where Damilola was a pupil, to turn around a school which, a little over two years ago, was put on special measures. It is awfully unfair that that school has been tarred with the accusation of bullying when in fact it has one of the fiercest anti-bullying policies of any school in the borough. The staff have my sympathy and support as they now help to support children grieving the loss of a classmate. Let me also express my deepest sympathy for the Taylor family and say how moved I have been by their deep Christian faith. A similar tribute could be paid to the family of Stephen Lawrence, killed on another estate in my diocese. Again, their Christian faith has been an example to us all.
What unites these two deaths is the fact that they are both the result of street violence. In London in particular, street crime, especially personal attacks and muggings, continues to rise. Some of this is driven by drugs. People in some parts of London and no doubt elsewhere are becoming alarmed at the increasing boldness of gunmen. But some urban disorder is created by the trauma of inner-city life, and in this raft of street crime, both the villains and the victims are likely to be teenage boys and young men. It is the pensioner who locks herself into her flat, fearing the streets outside, but in fact it is the young man who is most at risk. The Government are therefore right to focus attention on such unacceptable behaviour. However, I am not at all sure that as yet they have come up with the right formula for combating it.
I believe that the most significant component in tackling the problem of street crime is the presence of the police, policing the streets with the support and co-operation of the public. I repeat, both of those elements are necessary: the presence of the police and the co-operation of the public. However, this is easier said than done, in particular in multi-ethnic areas where it is vital that the police attract the support of all the ethnic communities. That is why the Macpherson report, following the death of Stephen Lawrence, is so important. It addresses some of the real issues regarding the mutual suspicion, or even hostility, which in the past has marred relationships between the police and black young men in particular. I believe that no institution in Britain is paying more attention to the question of institutionalised racism than the Metropolitan Police, and the fruits are beginning to show. However, there have also been less helpful consequences.
At present, the police in London are some 2,500 officers under strength. Many reasons can be given for this, including pay and conditions and the high cost of
386
housing. However, it should be said that there was some loss of police morale following Macpherson. It is not altogether surprising if some police officers responded to the report by not wishing to get involved in sensitive street incidents involving black young men in case they were accused of racism. But the truth is that, in urban London, members of minority ethnic groups are very often the victims of crime. They know that they need a good, effective police service which is even-handed in dealing with all ethnic groups. I hope that one positive outcome from the horror of the Damilola murder will be a new determination for the police and local people to work together in bringing law and order to the urban community.
I occasionally go out with the police at night and thus I know that there is another reason why the visible presence of the police on the streets is thin. The fact is that if a police officer makes an arrest, the officer is then taken off the streets for several hours while the case is processed in the local police station. We face a great dilemma here. Obviously, the courts demand clear lines of evidence before they will convict, but the result can be that police officers are spending the bulk of their shift in the police station rather than patrolling the streets.
One can see, therefore, the attraction of the proposal in the Bill on criminal justice and the police to introduce on-the-spot fines, with minor misdemeanours being dealt with immediately on the streets. The police themselves, however, seem to be less than enthusiastic about this. One can see the problem. A police officer weighing into a group of rowdy young men, perhaps the worse for drink or drugs, trying to impose an on-the-spot fine, could well turn a difficult situation into a mini-riot. I suspect that what the officer would do is haul the miscreant to the nearest police station and impose the fine there. But that is not totally different from the present practice.
Effective policing takes place only with the consent and support of the community. Anything which increases the hostility of the local community to the police therefore works against good policing. Teenage boys and young men disproportionately fall foul of the law, but most of them grow out of it and grow up to be good citizens. The yobs of today are often the good fathers of tomorrow. A bad experience with the police as a teenager can leave a legacy which means that an older man will be less than supportive of the police in later life.
With this in mind, I turn to some of the other proposals in the Queen's Speech. I understand the political imperative to deliver results—particularly with a general election on the horizon—but I believe that there are reasons for patience at present. The Inner London Probation Service, along with other services, is undergoing massive change. It is carrying out what has been called the biggest research programme in the social sciences in western Europe, seeking to find what actually works in preventing young people from reoffending. The results will take two or three years to come through but the effect could be enormous.

387
The Probation Service works with the youth offending teams that have been set up on a multi-agency basis as a result of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. Again, these will take time to settle down, with the need to establish new joint patterns of working and to experiment with schemes of justice in which offenders can make amends. In a similar way, the Metropolitan Police has established community service units in every borough to tackle "hate" crimes of domestic violence, racism and homophobia.
This means that the Government have set in chain already some of the biggest changes in criminal justice—especially youth justice—in the past 50 years. Given the severity of the problems in some areas of my diocese, that is all to the good. But I plead for time. I am not sure that the criminal justice system needs yet more legislation until it has absorbed all that has been delivered since 1997.
There are serious issues of disorder and the Government are rightly tackling the root causes of school exclusion, poverty and lack of employment skills. I do not condone the behaviour of young criminals at all—my parish clergy and their urban congregations encounter its effects repeatedly—and it is important that the sensible measures taken in the past few years are made to work. But I confess that I have doubts about whether the proposed new measures will do anything more than place greater burdens on hard-pressed services.
Finally, I turn to the matter of the proposed youth curfews. Many of the measures concerning young children, including curfews, in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 have hardly been used. Certainly, without a much stronger police presence there would be no way in which new youth curfews could be imposed, even if they were thought desirable. The professionals I talk to are very dubious about them. Indeed, they could alienate a whole generation of young people from the police.
We should judge all these proposals not only on the basis of whether they will help to deal with the problems of street crime in the here and now, but how they will increase mutual respect between police and public in the long term. Only then will they be contributing to the creation of a safer society.

Business
Lord Burlison: My Lords, before we move to the Statement on the Vauxhall factory closure announcement, I take the opportunity to remind the House that the Companion indicates that discussion on a Statement should be confined to brief comments and questions for clarification. Peers who speak at length do so at the expense of other noble Lords.

Vauxhall
4.15 p.m.
The Minister for Science, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement on Vauxhall being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry concerning yesterday's announcement by General Motors to end car production at its Vauxhall plant in Luton. The Statement is as follows:
"Over recent months, General Motors has been conducting a world-wide review of its operations. The results of this review were announced yesterday.
"The decision in relation to Luton is a bitter blow, with the prospect of 2,000 jobs being lost by this time next year. Our efforts must be directed towards assisting those individuals affected and the local community through what will be clearly a difficult period.
"In this Statement I want to outline the steps the Government will take. But before I do that, it is important that the House considers the reasons given by General Motors for this decision.
"It has made it clear that this is a part of a Europe-wide restructuring of its operations, which will result in over 5,000 job losses across Europe. Vauxhall has stated that this restructuring is a response to over-capacity in the car market and to rapidly changing European market conditions, with lower sales than expected and a shift in customer preferences towards smaller vehicles.
"Vauxhall's announcement is part of an overall restructuring by General Motors designed to reduce salaried employment levels by 10 per cent in North America and Europe over the next year, cutting 10,000 jobs world-wide.
"Despite yesterday's announcement, Vauxhall will remain an important manufacturer in the UK. Vauxhall has confirmed that it will continue with its investment plans for a new van to be manufactured at Luton and that planned production volumes for the project will be increased. This will secure over 2,000 jobs.
"Ellesmere Port will continue to produce Astra cars and V6 engines, employing over 4,000 people. Vauxhall also announced yesterday that a study is being made to possibly incorporate the next generation Vectra and to turn the Ellesmere Port plant into a two-model 'flex' plant.
"So it is clear that this is part of a world-wide restructuring by General Motors, resulting in job losses in North America and mainland Europe as well as Luton.
"The challenge is to provide new job opportunities for the future to replace those jobs lost as a result of Vauxhall's decision. That is why yesterday I announced, with my right honourable friend the Employment Minister, that the Government will be taking a number of steps to help those affected and to strengthen the local economy.

389
"The Employment Service, working closely with Vauxhall, local authorities and other relevant bodies, will provide a package of advice and assistance to those affected by the decision. This package will include rapid response units providing a personal service to help people find new jobs; an on-site Jobshop to offer vacancies, help with applications and fast-track benefits service; and retraining programmes which will offer guidance on further education and training opportunities.
"These rapid response units have a good record in finding new employment for people affected by major job losses. At Fujitsu in County Durham, a rapid response unit helped ensure around 94 per cent of the workforce found new jobs within 12 months. At Siemens in north Tyneside, the Employment Service played a major role in helping around 90 per cent of the workforce find new employment.
"Taken together, these measures will ensure that Vauxhall employees are given the best opportunity for a secure future and that the effects on the local economy are minimised.
"We have also asked the regional development agency to take the lead in identifying the action necessary to support the local economy and employment base. The RDA has already begun this task and this afternoon is meeting with the local authority and other relevant organisations. It will establish a planning partnership to identify the practical measures necessary to assist in economic regeneration and job creation.
"As a result of decisions taken by this Government, Luton is now part of our assisted areas map and as such qualifies for regional selective assistance.
"Of particular concern must be the position of those businesses that supply Vauxhall, for whom special support will be necessary. The RDA will help companies in the supply chain to diversify and find new business to minimise the impact on the wider local economy.
"It is clear that, at a time of globalisation, many sectors of industry are going through major restructuring. In these circumstances the role of government is to provide economic stability. That is what we are doing.
"The underlying strengths of our economy are clear, as two sets of figures published today demonstrate. Today's labour market statistics show that employment is 300,000 higher than at this time last year. Official figures published this morning show that the stock of foreign direct investment in the United Kingdom has risen by 21 per cent over the past year, from £188 billion to £227 billion.
"But I am first to acknowledge that these figures will be of little comfort for thousands of workers in Luton. Many will understand that sense of anger they feel—in particular about the manner in which they learnt of their fate. This will be a bleak
390
Christmas for those affected by Vauxhall's decision. We must do all we can to help them through the difficult months ahead. By working together, I am confident that we will be able to meet the challenges of the next 12 months".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4.21 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. Of course, this is a shattering blow to a town that is heavily dependent on this particular employer, to say nothing of the effect that the decision will have on other businesses around the country which are suppliers to General Motors. I know that the Minister agrees with me that, as was said in the Statement, the manner in which the cutbacks have been announced—particularly at this time of the year—is rather insensitive, not only as regards the employees but also as regards their families.
We are pleased to hear of the support and training that the Government intend to give to attempt to alleviate the problem. We certainly agree with that package of help and should not want to hold it up in any way. But as we know, this is not the only closure in the car manufacturing industry. We have had the sad announcement from Ford's at Dagenham and the problems at the Nissan plant in Sunderland, quite apart from the difficulties of Rover, where for some time the Government did not seem totally aware of what would happen.
When we were in government, BMW, Nissan and Toyota were pleased to invest in Britain. They were all attracted to this country because of its low regulatory burdens and low taxation. Indeed. Mr Pischetsrieder, the BMW chairman, said in 1995:
"Great Britain is currently the most attractive country among all European countries for producing cars".
And yet today—a very sad day in the car manufacturing industry—the story is quite different.
In the Vauxhall statement today, reiterated in the Statement, General Motors has said that this is all part of a Europe-wide restructuring of its operations due to over-capacity in the car market. I do not wish to place any blame on the Government in regard to matters over which they can clearly have no control, overcapacity being one of those areas. However, if there has to be restructuring, we believe that businesses will still want to invest in those countries where regulation is low and the tax burden is light. Those are points on which we have warned the Government for some time.
According to the Geneva-based World Economic Forum, in terms of competitiveness, Britain has slipped from fourth position in 1999 to ninth in the year 2000, due mostly to the extra regulatory burdens placed on business. The forum is not talking merely about the motor industry but about other manufacturing business. Sadly, manufacturing in this country is doing badly at present. For example, 12,000 jobs have recently been lost at Coats Viyella, and 5,000 jobs are to go at British Steel, to give just a couple of examples.

391
There are large numbers of regulatory burdens. It is not appropriate to tire the House with a long list; the Statement was fairly short and I should like to make my response equally short. The Government know the regulations that they have placed on business. But as if that is not enough, sadly, they intend to introduce the new climate change levy next April, which will certainly ruin our competitiveness by imposing additional burdens.
According to the economic policy and statistics section of the House of Commons Library, since May 1997 206,000 jobs have been lost in manufacturing. That contrasts with the 69,000 increase in jobs in manufacturing during the years 1992–97.
I said that my response to the Statement would be brief. I merely want to put a few questions to the Minister. Can he help the House with some information regarding the grant offer of £40 million of regional selective assistance which is said to have been made to Nissan to secure production of the new Micra at the Sunderland plant? I understand that that is still being appraised—indeed stalled—by the European Commission. Perhaps the Minister can shed some light on that and say whether we are to hear some good news in the not-too-distant future.
Secondly, does the Minister recognise the figures that I gave of 206,000 manufacturing jobs lost? Does he agree with the TUC labour market briefing, dated November 2000, which commented on the downward trend of employment and on the fact that 20,000 jobs in manufacturing were lost in September compared with an average of 10,000 jobs lost in each of the preceding six months?
Thirdly, might the Government, on reflection, decide to reverse the climate levy tax?
Finally, in repeating the Statement, the noble Lord said that 2,000 jobs will be lost, which was part of the Vauxhall statement. He went on to say that despite that, the industry will go on to produce something else, which will secure another 2,000 jobs in Luton. Does that mean that there will be no net job loss? What does it mean?
4.27 p.m.
Lord Razzall: My Lords, like the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, we welcome the steps that the Government are taking in reaction to these unfortunate events and believe them to be entirely right. We deplore, as did the Minister, the bitter blow to those involved. It is not only the 2,000 jobs at Vauxhall that will be significantly affected as a result of this decision; the prospective effect on the suppliers of components, particularly those in the United Kingdom, is also a serious matter. The Minister may confirm the calculation that for every one job in the motor car manufacturing industry there are roughly 10 dependent jobs in the supply of components and related services. Clearly, as the Minister said, the work of the Government and in particular that of the RDA, needs to take account of those employees.
Does the Minister agree that this is a moment to reflect more widely on these issues? Perhaps I may touch on one or two points made by the noble
392
Baroness. First, does he accept that there is a temptation and tendency for governments, of whatever persuasion, to view these issues in isolation? The 1990s were a period of significant investment in the mass market motor car industry in this country—not for any of the reasons described by the noble Baroness, but largely because the world-wide economic trends at that period were for significant growth in mass market motor car manufacture. Does the Minister further agree that we now face the possibility that this world-wide trend will decline over the next few years?
Further, if the noble Lord accepts that thesis, will he indicate whether the Government simply take the view that they will adopt a totally laissez-faire approach to the matter and react with the Band-Aid whenever a closure occurs? Alternatively, does the noble Lord think that the Government ought be proactive in such situations, though not in the sense of going back to the bad old days of investment of taxpayers' money into industries that taxpayers and the government do not know how to run? Does he agree with the line taken, for example, in the editorial of The Times newspaper this morning; namely, that the structure of the motor car industry in this country should move away from mass-market motor car manufacture into the area of specialised motor car manufacture, because that is the only future course for this country? If the noble Lord agrees that that is the case, can he say what the Government propose to do about it as regards the creation of the structures that I know are dear to the heart of the DTI as part of its current political control?
Secondly, perhaps I may touch on the point made by the noble Baroness. Can the Minister confirm—I am sure that he will—that these issues are nothing whatever to do with the question of over-bureaucracy, regulation or taxation in this country and that they are entirely to do with world-wide trends? The noble Baroness made a valiant attempt at suggesting that, in some way, all was rosy under the Tory government, but many of us remember that they actually decimated manufacturing industry in 1981 and 1982. 1 am sure that the Minister does not need me to give him a lesson on that subject; indeed, he can take it up himself.
The third point that I should like make is an interesting one. I suppose that it is also a comment on the current political position in this country. The one secret the noble Baroness dared not mention is the question of the currency. I have with me the submission that Vauxhall Motors gave to the inquiry of the House of Commons Treasury Select Committee into economic and monetary union. In that document the company said:
"The structure of General Motors Europe (GME) makes it vital that Vauxhall demonstrate competitiveness against sister operations in Europe when seeking new investment. Joining the euro would save Vauxhall millions of pounds annually on currency conversions and hedging costs… when competing with sister operations and competitors based in Europe, Vauxhall has the extra cost burden arising from currency transactions. Given that two-thirds of the value of component parts are drawn from euroland countries, Vauxhall finds itself needing to spend many millions of pounds per year on currency conversions and hedging

393
costs. In an industry where margins are low, this has real downside potential for creating a significant impact on our level of competitiveness".
I do not want to join the current euro fanaticism on the other side of the argument by suggesting that the question of currency is the only issue that has affected this decision. Indeed, to be fair to the other side of the argument, in its presentation to the Treasury Select Committee Vauxhall made the point that the currency issue is not in itself overriding. However, can the Minister confirm that the delay associated with going into the euro has been, at worst, a significant factor in this decision? Will he also agree that clearing up the doubts about the timing of our entry into the euro would be a significant factor in ensuring that we do not have more of these motor car manufacture closures?
4.34 p.m.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, perhaps I may begin by stressing the point that I made when repeating the Statement; namely, that this announcement being made just a week or so before Christmas, and in a situation where workers learned of the job losses by way of radio and television reports, is not an acceptable way to deal with such issues. I very much regret the way that this matter has been handled. However, we must judge such events in terms of the current situation in the car market in Europe.
I am glad that the noble Baroness accepts that the British Government are not able to control the oversupply in the European car market. Equally, I hope that the noble Baroness will accept that the fact that inward investment increased last year from £188 million to £227 million—an increase of 21 per cent—suggests that, far from people seeing this as an uncompetitive place in which to invest, other countries appear to believe that this is an absolutely ideal place for such investment. Frankly, the fact that money is being invested in this country is far more persuasive to me as proof of the competitiveness of the British economy than any ranking statistics. We are talking about people putting money into this country, which is a very clear indication of their thinking as regards the state of the British economy.
Perhaps I may also correct the impression that manufacturing production in this country is in a very parlous state. That is not true; in fact, manufacturing production has increased by slightly less than 1 per cent. Of course, job losses have taken place. However, the information that I have shows that since 1997 the figure is 250,000, which is about 80,000 a year. That contrasts with the situation in the years from 1979 to 1997—I take the whole period of the previous government, not a selective period—where there was a steady loss of manufacturing jobs of 150,000 every year. People should bear those facts in mind when considering the loss of manufacturing jobs in this country over the past two or three years. I should stress that in almost every European country there have been significant losses in manufacturing jobs over this period.
394
I can confirm that regional selective assistance has been offered to Nissan for the Micra. The matter is with the Commission, and we are pushing very hard to get the issue resolved as soon as possible. As regards the technical point about the number of job losses, we are, as I understand it, talking about 2,000 job losses after taking account of the fact that there will be increases at the IBC plant, which is also at Luton but not part of that manufacturing complex.
I turn to the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Razzall. It is very difficult quickly to assess what the general impact will be on job losses in other companies, particularly in the supply chain. That will depend on their ability to supply other places, especially the new model of the Vectra that will be at Rũsselsheim and, perhaps, at Ellesmere Port.
As regards whether we should take a "proactive" or a "Band-Aid" approach, I do not believe that it would be accepted that specialised car manufacture is the only way forward for British car manufacturers. In fact, considerable investment has been gained in car manufacturing. Indeed, in 1999 car production reached the highest point since 1972. Sales were the fourth highest on record, and UK exports were the highest ever. Investment is going into a number of plants. Therefore, to approach such a situation by saying that specialised car manufacture is the only way forward would be to make the mistake of trying to pick winners. However, I accept the general principle that all manufacturing industry has constantly to be upgrading its performance in terms of value added if it is to compete with low wage countries, especially those in eastern Europe.
I also agree with the noble Lord that this is nothing to do with bureaucracy. Despite all that has been said on the issue, inward investment is flowing into this country. It is also true to say that Vauxhall made it very clear that this has nothing to do with the weakness of the euro. It is about over-supply in the European car market. We are talking about a very difficult situation: the fact that they have had to bear part of this burden has been a real body blow for the workers at Luton.
4.40 p.m.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, is my noble friend aware—although I do not imagine that he will be——that I was a Member of Parliament for Luton 30 years ago in somewhat happier times for the motor industry and for the people who live there? Does he accept that I agree with the proposal he made to alleviate conditions there? I regret that the management have been acutely unsympathetic and insensitive at this time. In my recollection that is par for the course, but never mind. Does my noble friend also regret the tone adopted by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, for whom I have affectionate feelings, as she well knows, in her attempt to utilise the misfortunes of the citizens and workers of Luton as a stick with which to beat the Government? It was not much of a stick.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, we shall do everything we can to help the transition of people to new jobs. On the many occasions that we have debated

395
these issues, the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, has always shown enormous sympathy both for small businesses and for people who work in businesses. I do not hold against her the fact that she chose once again to take up the cause of over regulation. I have heard that point of view expressed many times. As I say, the noble Baroness has always supported small businesses and the reduction of regulations to a minimum. I share that view. As I say, on this occasion I do not hold against her the fact that she took up the cause of over regulation.
Lord Prior: My Lords, given that the decision that has been taken is regrettable, I thought that my noble friend on our Front Bench showed great restraint in her remarks. She was perfectly right to say that the competitive position of British industry has declined sharply. You do not have to go far at the moment to hear considerable and growing complaints about the burdens now being placed on British industry which are beginning to make it uncompetitive. The noble Lord refutes that by talking about inward investment, but he must realise, probably more than most people, that decisions on inward investment are probably made a year or two before that investment takes place. We must now consider what inward investment is likely to arise at a time when the Government are placing more and more burdens on industry. This is a serious matter. The way in which we on this side of the House have treated this difficult and regrettable decision by Vauxhall is in stark contrast to what, a few years ago, one might have expected if we had been in government and noble Lords opposite had been in opposition.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I believe that we have already discussed burdens on industry in the debate on the Queen's Speech. I do not accept the theory that enormous burdens have been placed on British industry. We have pointed out again and again that the figures which purport to indicate burdens on British industry consist largely of the payments that have to be made in benefits under the minimum wage legislation or other legislation which the Government have introduced. I do not regard those as burdens but as necessary payments to give people a fair and decent wage and decent conditions. If noble Lords opposite want to suggest that those payments constitute intolerable burdens on British industry, they should have the courage to say that they would remove them and return to a situation where people are not paid a decent minimum wage and do not receive proper benefits. That is the only way for them to justify their complaint about burdens on British industry. I accept that decisions on inward investment are made prior to the investment taking place. However, there are no signs that investment is slowing down. There is every reason to think that the climate for British industry is as good as it has ever been.
I quote two newspapers which I would not normally quote on these occasions. The Daily Mail stated this morning,
"But what should offer hope is that Britain's economy is today the healthiest it has been in decades".
396
Even the Sun stated:
"Britain's overall economy is in fine shape".
That is the background but we are dealing with the specific situation of over supply in the car industry.
The Earl of Carnarvon: My Lords, I believe that the Minister said that the Government might help with applications. As chairman of SERPLAN I visited Luton not long ago. As everyone probably knows, Luton unitary authority is limited in terms of development. The local authority is hemmed in by areas of outstanding natural beauty and the airport. Apart from the Vauxhall works, few other brownfield sites are available. How can the Government help with planning applications to provide new job opportunities?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, as a result of action that we have taken, Luton forms part of the assisted areas map and therefore qualifies for regional selective assistance. We can help inward investment companies on that basis in terms of creating further jobs.
Lord Islwyn: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. I appreciate the helpful steps that the Government propose to take to try to alleviate this difficult situation. Has the Minister noted the remarks of Mr Nick Reilly, the Vauxhall chairman, and other General Motors directors who stressed that the decision had little to do with sterling's strength against the euro, or the UK's failure to join the European currency, or poor factory or worker productivity, and that Britain remains a viable location for car production? Yet car production is to be ended on the Luton site after 95 years. Does not the Minister consider that a pretty soulless decision taken without any consideration of the car component suppliers or of our hard pressed steel industry? It is altogether a sad business.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I agree with the comments of Mr Nick Reilly that the decision has little to do with euro weakness and has nothing to do with worker productivity or industrial relations. As I said earlier, it concerns over supply in the European car industry. It probably has much to do with the fact that General Motors has just suffered a loss of 181 million dollars in Europe and is thought by some analysts to face losses in the fourth quarter of 600 million dollars. I believe that the decision was taken in that hard commercial light.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, when was the Government first informed of the decision by Vauxhall Motors to close Luton?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, we have been in contact with the company. On that basis we were able to respond to the announcement as quickly as we did.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, I declare an interest as a member of the Court of the University of

397
Luton, a new university which prides itself on working hard at its relationships with local employers. I know that my noble friend appreciates the extent to which the General Motors announcement has been greeted with shock and disappointment in the town, given the fine record of the local management and the workforce in improving productivity and the quality of the cars they produce. Vauxhall has been a valued customer and partner of the university since the university was founded. Will the Minister give an assurance that the Government will do all they can to support the university in helping to retrain Vauxhall workers for new employment and to provide counselling and guidance if needed? Does the Minister also agree that it is now more important than ever that the economy in the region diversifies and the university is given every encouragement to help widen the local skills base?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I would be happy to reinforce the argument. In these circumstances universities can play a major role in working with local businesses to upgrade the economy and to train workers for new industries. There are now some good examples across the country of universities performing that role. That is why we have introduced the higher education innovation fund which is directly focused on the relationship between universities and businesses and assisting them to upgrade.
Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen: My Lords, coming to this House, as I did, from the Manufacturing, Science and Finance union, your Lordships will appreciate what a shock the news from Vauxhall gave me. Is the Minister working closely with the trade unions which represent the workforce in Luton?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, in these circumstances we are working very closely with all the people who have an interest: the regional development agency, local authorities, trade unions and others so that we can co-ordinate our activities to help the workforce deal with this difficult situation. A meeting this afternoon at Luton Borough Council will involve the East of England Investment Agency, the Luton Borough Council, the East of England Development Agency, Regional Supply Office, South Bedford District Council and a number of other bodies all of which will be trying to help to deal with the situation.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, will the Minister help me by clarifying one point of fact? There seems to be a suggestion that Luton is heavily dependent upon the car industry. I understand that Luton is a highly diversified town with a diverse economic structure. Although, as the noble Lord said, it is a body blow to the industry and a terrible blow to the workers and their families, is it true that it will not have a disproportionate effect upon Luton as a whole?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I cannot give clear figures about the level of diversification.
398
However, the fact that it is losing 2,000 jobs would be a blow to any town and is much to be regretted. The fact that it now qualifies for regional selective assistance is a clear indication that the economy in that local area is not strong. So I cannot agree that it is not a significant body blow to the town.

Address in Reply to Her Majesty's Most Gracious Speech
4.53 p.m.
Debate resumed.
Lord Warner: My Lords, picking up the threads from our previous debate, I, too, congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Kirkham, on his maiden speech. As a former director of social services I look forward to his contributions on children's issues in our debates and the wisdom that he has demonstrated today. I suspect that he and I will be arguing from similar positions in future debates. It is also a pleasure to follow the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark. As a resident of Southwark I know well not only the problems that it faces but also some of the effective responses which local agencies are making. In my capacity as chairman of the Youth Justice Board I recently spent some time with the Southwark Youth Offending Team which is located within 100 yards or so of where Damilola Taylor so tragically died. The changes which the youth offending teams are making in Southwark and elsewhere in implementing youth justice reforms are making a real difference. Although further changes must be orderly, I am more confident than the right reverend Prelate that youth offending teams and the police will be able to take on in a measured way the further changes that the Government envisage.
I also share the right reverend Prelate's concerns on rising street crime in London and other major cities. As he said, it is an uncomfortable fact that the great majority of that street crime involves young people robbing other young people; and some of it is undoubtedly drugs-driven. The Youth Justice Board is working closely with the Metropolitan Police Commissioner and hopes to come up with some new initiatives in this area in the not-too-distant future.
I wish to express my support for the Government's continuing commitment to reforming the criminal justice system and producing measures that tackle problems of crime and disorder in our society. Regrettably, violence and disorder on our streets is a continuing feature of life in some of our communities. However, the onset of the upward trend in violent crime goes back to long before this Government came to office. The roots are in the rise in child poverty and unemployment in the 1980s. In parenthesis, I was a little surprised to hear the Conservative Front Bench chastise the Government for not having more legislation on children given the track record of the previous government in overseeing the rise in child poverty and some of the damage that that has caused

399
in our society. Some of the trend in rising violence has strong links to alcohol and drugs. Sadly, while crime has gone down by about 10 per cent since this Government came into office, violent crime still continues to give cause for concern.
The Government's sound economic management, anti-drugs strategy, family policies and tax and benefit changes that help children and families will have an impact on crime. But action on other fronts is essential, particularly earlier intervention in criminal and disorderly behaviour. At the heart of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 was reform of the youth justice system, drug testing and treatment orders and antisocial behaviour orders. Underpinning those changes were the ideas that tackling crime and disorder could not be left to the traditional criminal justice system; there should be more concern with outcomes rather than process; and partnership working by different agencies was critical to success. Some of the measures in the new legislation that we shall discuss this year, such as curfews and fixed penalty notices, continue along that path. As chairman of the Youth Justice Board, I welcome them as long as they are integrated, as I expect, into the earlier reforms now beginning to work well and have professional acceptance from the police and other agencies.
One of the issues that the new local crime audits and local crime reduction strategies have identified is the strong link between alcohol and crime. About two-thirds of these strategies identify alcohol-related crime as a problem. In recent years we have seen a huge increase in what is called in the jargon mass volume vertical drinking. That is a fancy term for describing large numbers of young men in crowded rooms with no seats and little, if any, food consuming alcohol. Unsurprisingly, this has led to more and more violent incidents outside pubs and clubs. I am sure that the Government are right to defer legislation on licensing changes so that we can be sure that this phenomenon of recent years can be taken properly into account. No one wants to be a killjoy, but we cannot continue along a path of increasing numbers of young men tanking themselves up, releasing themselves on to crowded urban areas and expecting the police to sort out the problem. I suppose that what I am saying is that the Conservative leader's youthful 14 pints in a day has to become a thing of the past.
There has been much debate about police numbers. As a Londoner I share the concerns of the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police about police numbers in London. I pay tribute to the leadership which he and his deputy provide in tackling crime in London. But again London's policing problems have their roots in the past. I know from my earlier work in the Home Office how much the current Home Secretary did in 1997 and 1998 to address the rather parlous funding position of the Metropolitan Police inherited from his predecessor and to put the boundaries of the Met on a more logical basis that made partnership with local authorities easier.
The Government have a good record on working constructively with the police to improve police efficiency and effectiveness. I am sure that they will
400
continue along that path. We know from Audit Commission studies that there is not a simple correlation between spending more money on uniformed police officers and reducing crime. More bobbies on the beat is a simplistic cry on its own. Simply putting more uniformed officers on the street will not have much impact on crime, however desirable that may be, unless other measures are also taken.
New police officers need to be properly trained, to have access to new technology, to have good personnel policies and to be managed by high quality leaders. The Government have an excellent record on increased investment in forensic science, information technology and police radio systems that will make the police more effective. New legislation to underpin reforms in police training will help that process further, alongside the extra money being put into police budgets.
In recent years the police have learned to work in partnership with other agencies and local communities in tackling crime. The private security industry is an important part of the framework of tackling crime and disorder. I am pleased that the Government are producing legislation to regulate it. The area was seriously neglected by their predecessors, despite support for reform from responsible parts of the security industry. The reform is long overdue and I hope that the House will give the Bill a speedy passage.
Other measures in the legislative programrne will also help to tackle crime more effectively. I shall not go into all of them, but I hope—this is more hope than expectation—that we can adopt a more responsible attitude to debating the Criminal Justice (Mode of Trial) Bill. The noise of grinding axes in our previous debates on the subject was sometimes deafening. The criminal justice system still has many shortcomings in terms of cost-effectiveness. As it is a tax-funded service, we should continue to question its cost-effectiveness and efficiency. The Bill is a legitimate, modest reform that we should adopt. I suspect that it may look extremely modest compared with—
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords—
Lord Warner: My Lords, I do not think that it is the convention that we interrupt each other in this debate.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, what does the noble Lord mean by "efficiency" when it comes to the criminal justice system? Does he mean more convictions, regardless of whether a person is guilty?
Lord Warner: My Lords, that is a question for debate, but the short answer is that the money spent on input has to relate to the output achieved. The criminal justice system does not always score highly on that scale.
Lord Justice Auld's review and the review of the sentencing framework may come up with more far-reaching options. I hope that we shall consider the Bill in that context.

401
Lastly, I shall say a few words about the public. The crime and disorder measures that the Government have introduced and are introducing this Session have at their core increasing public confidence in the policies and processes for tackling crime and disorder. I am sceptical about opinion polls, but in preparing for the debate I tried to find a recent opinion poll on which party had the best policies on law and order. I found that a MORI poll conducted in July for the Mail on Sunday hardly a staunch supporter of the Government—found that more people thought that Labour had the best policies compared with the opposition parties. It was not an overwhelming vote of confidence, but it suggests that the Government might be heading in the right direction for the public. That view is reinforced by the English Housing survey published two weeks ago, which revealed that the number of people who thought that crime was a serious problem dropped by a third in the past two years. In some neighbourhoods, the drop was by more than half. That suggests that people think that the Government are adopting the right approach in tackling crime and disorder and that a bit more of the same would not go amiss.
5.4 p.m.
Lord Butler of Brockwell: My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Kirkham, on his maiden speech with sincere warmth, but not at such length as would prevent him from going for a well earned cup of tea. With that in mind, I assure him that I shall not speak about policy towards children.
My contribution to the debate will be modest. My sense of the general atmosphere tells me that there will not be much place in the next few months for nonpartisan contributions from Cross-Benchers who do not hunt.
I urge the Government not to lose sight of three items that were not mentioned in the gracious Speech and to make progress with them if possible over the period ahead.
The first is the reform of your Lordships' House. I warmly welcome the clear statement of the Leader of the House that the Government will bring forward their proposals for further legislation before the next election and are seeking to establish a Joint Committee on the parliamentary aspects of further reform.
I do not want today to deal with the balance of elected and appointed Members of the House. As a member of the Wakeham Commission, I fully support its recommendation that the House should comprise a mixture of appointed and elected Members in a proportion that gives all regions of the United Kingdom a voice through election and gives a voice to other areas of experience and expertise through appointed Members.
I shall concentrate on how appointed Members reach the House. I welcome the establishment of the Appointments Commission, under the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Coddenham, to appoint Cross-Benchers. I hope that the Government and the other
402
parties will not be tempted to confine the commission's operations to the appointment of Cross-Benchers, but will follow the Royal Commission's unanimous recommendation that all appointments to this House, whether party or Cross Bench, should be in the hands of such an independent commission.
The Royal Commission felt strongly that the authority of appointed Members of your Lordships' House would be compromised for as long as appointment rested on the patronage of the Prime Minister. It may be argued that political parties should have the choice of those who are to take their Whip. Like the Royal Commission, I acknowledge and advocate that nominations by the Prime Minister and leaders of other parties should carry great weight with the Appointments Commission, but that should fall short of total control. If party leaders had total control over party appointments, the logical corollary would be that the leaders of the Conservative and Liberal Democrat Parties should be able to nominate directly rather than having to do so through the Prime Minister.
A better solution, which is most likely to quell public misgivings about appointments, is that all nominations—party affiliated and others—should be made through the Appointments Commission, which should contain a nominee of the three main parties and the Cross Benches to see that political considerations were properly taken into account. I hope that all parties will support that in the preparation of proposals in the period leading up to the election. It is an important aspect of the future authority and public standing of your Lordships' House.
The second issue to which I urge the Government to give further attention before the election is the West Lothian question. After the next election, Labour may well have a majority of United Kingdom seats but a minority of English seats. Apart from the landslide of the last election, that has been the normal situation since the war when there have been Labour majorities in the other place.
With the greatest respect, the Opposition's suggestion that only Members of English constituencies should be able to vote on legislation affecting England is not a solution. It would mean that Labour Governments of the United Kingdom, but not Conservative Governments, would have difficulty in passing legislation that affected only England. That, I believe, would be unacceptable. Not only that; it would be an important step towards separate English, Scottish and Welsh Parliaments and, through that, a step towards the break-up of the United Kingdom, although I am sure that the authors of the proposal do not intend that. For that reason, I profoundly hope that a future Conservative government would not persevere with that proposal.
I believe that the only solution to the West Lothian question may lie in a more informal self-restraint on the part of government parties of both sides not to push through seriously opposed legislation affecting one part of the United Kingdom by relying on votes from areas not so affected. In the Britissh constitution

403
we have been used to informal self-denying ordinances of that sort. This House has been particularly used to such self-denying ordinances, and I feel sure that this is a better route than formal restrictions.
The final matter to which I urge the Government to give attention is one in which I have a personal interest—the preparation for a Civil Service Act. I have come to the conclusion only reluctantly that such an Act is desirable. Previously I have believed that, provided both parties respect the conventions governing an impartial Civil Service—as I believe they have—the flexibility provided by the absence of legislation is an advantage.
But we now live in a world where everything is being codified. It is possible that at some time in the future the Civil Service will become a political football between the main parties, as has happened in other countries which have even had the Westminster and Whitehall tradition. That would undermine once and for all the non-political nature of the Civil Service, which I consider to be an important asset of this country.
Many of us were very encouraged by the Government's response to the Sixth Report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life and by the Government's affirmation of their resolve to put in place defences for Civil Service neutrality. Those defences depend to some extent on a Civil Service Act on which the Government sensibly said they would consult before introduction. For that reason, I was not surprised by the lack of a reference in the gracious Speech to legislation on the Civil Service. However, I hope that when the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General replies tonight he may be able to tell us that consultation will begin in the near future with a view to legislation on this matter being introduced in the next Parliament.
5.13 p.m.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, from these Benches I welcome the maiden contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Kirkham. I hope that he will not be constrained by party Whips when matters concerning the care of young people are debated in this House. I, for one, will look forward to his support on future occasions.
I am delighted to respond to Her Majesty's gracious Speech. Legislation on matters relating to the Home Office is a mixed bag. Cracking down on crime, criminals and benefit fraudsters is laudable. However, it is clear that this Government have turned law and order policy into a Dutch auction, with both the Conservatives and the Labour Party aiming for the high ground.
Although we welcome some of the measures proposed by the Government, we are concerned that too much emphasis is currently being placed on the problem of yob culture—being tough on crime—at the expense of a sufficiently wide range of measures to address the causes of crime. The Government's duty is also to lead; not simply to compete. The amount of money spent on tough measures relating to crime is
404
completely out of proportion to money spent on crime prevention strategies. It would be helpful to have the Minister's observations on this point.
There are, of course, significant omissions in the Home Office Bills; for example, we need a national network of neighbourhood mediation programmes to help to prevent conflicts between neighbours escalating into crime. That would do much to improve the quality of life on deprived housing estates. We need a range of other measures to address the personal, family and social problems that often confront offenders. In particular, we should like to see a youth offending team plus a regime for 18 to 21 year-olds. Here, I certainly welcome not necessarily the political opinion but the valuable and effective work that the noble Lord, Lord Warner, and his youth just ice boards are doing.
Where are the measures to identify the positive benefits of immigration, particularly in a country with a static or declining population? We shall pay a heavy price if we simply stick to being Little Englanders when we know that the prosperity of future generations depends on the working population of today. Where are the measures that would, once and for all, remove the stigma of vouchers handed out to asylum seekers? That remains a blot on our civilised values concerning the care of victims of torture.
Of course, the Home Office will say that some of those matters are under review. However, it is unlikely that we shall see the implementation of such measures this side of a general election. After all, the measures proposed clearly indicate that such an election is due in the not too distant future.
I have another concern, referred to by other noble Lords. It relates to the creation of a substantial number of criminal offences since this Government came to power. As is often asked, do we need all those measures? Should we not allow a breathing space for our criminal justice system to bed down? A good example is the proposal for a curfew order. The Home Secretary has admitted that introducing curfew orders for children under the age of 10 was a mistake. As has been pointed out, not a single order has been issued since the law was introduced.
Let us consider other measures in the criminal justice Acts. We have not even had time to measure their success or failure before embarking on further legislation. I suspect that before long the Home Secretary will admit in the other place that some of the measures have no impact on crime and disorder in the community.
We recognise that there are serious problems in troubled inner city areas and that they need to be tackled. I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark, who spoke eloquently about those concerns. However, we have serious worries about curfews for under-16s. We note that the Association of Chief Police Officers expressed concern about the practical implementation of some of the new measures and, in particular, about the practicality of curfews. In part, that is due to the doubts abut their workability and whether the police forces have the

405
manpower to enforce them. Only today I spoke to a retired chief constable, who told me that such proposals will not work. Did the Minister consult those who have to implement such measures?
Blanket curfews will needlessly penalise law-abiding youngsters who are out for legitimate reasons, such as playing sport or other after-school activities. There is also a risk that they will worsen already fraught relationships between some young people and the police. Ample evidence already exists of adversarial relationships between young people and the police. Why add to that?
There are alternative and more constructive ways to address these problems. In particular, we know that many young people in deprived localities cause trouble because insufficient provision is made for them to engage in positive activities. In Peckham, which has been cited as an example and where Damilola was killed, over 100 youngsters have been excluded from schools. They have nothing to do. Further investment is needed in constructive activities such as youth clubs and sporting facilities, as well as in mentoring schemes. My own organisation, NACRO, commented that a network of support and constructive activities will do far more to reduce the likelihood of youth delinquency than simply extending an idea that so far has proved to be unworkable.
More generally, removing young people from the streets does not address the problem that leads some people to become involved in crime and anti-social behaviour in the first place. Curfews may keep potentially troublesome young people off the streets but they do nothing to address the problems which may lead them to offend in the first place. That needs to be looked into. Legislation can be effective only if all else fails.
I turn now to the new powers to address alcohol-related anti-social behaviour and violence. Some of the measures announced in the Queen's Speech are eminently sensible and should help to address some of the situational factors that link alcohol consumption and crime. In particular, we welcome the new powers for councils to ban drinking in some public places—so long as they are used sensitively and appropriately—and provision for tougher action against publicans who repeatedly flout the law.
We have concerns about the introduction of fixed penalty notices along the lines of tickets for motoring offences. That may not be conducive to good police/ community relationships. It may be difficult for the police to distinguish between high-spirited revellers and those whose drunkenness may result in crime. Moreover, we fear that there may be significant variations in the extent to which those measures are used in different neighbourhoods and localities, which is likely to undermine public community confidence. Therefore, there is a question as to the workability of those provisions.
More important, we should never ask our police to act as prosecutors, which is what they are doing when issuing a fixed penalty ticket. We have courts for that
406
purpose and they are better placed to decide what punishment is appropriate. Fining people is not always the answer.
As well as addressing situational factors which may contribute towards alcohol-related crime and disorder, there is a need to expand and develop education, treatment and rehabilitation programmes similar to those which have been employed effectively in work with convicted drunk drivers.
I turn now to the regulation of the private security industry and bouncers. Clearly, with large numbers of people entering the city and town centres at night, especially at the weekend, and the limited police manpower, the private security industry—and that includes bouncers—plays a key role in maintaining good order for the foreseeable future. The absence of any real regulation to date has been a cause for concern. It is clear that inappropriate people are often being employed in the security industry. Regulation is long overdue.
I cite a couple of examples. Manchester City Centre attracts an average of 75,000 people on Friday and Saturday nights who are policed by just 30 police officers augmented by 1,000 door staff and bouncers. Nottingham has about 30,000 night-time weekend visitors who are policed by 12 to 15 officers augmented by 400 door staff and bouncers. There are an estimated 100,000 door staff and bouncers working throughout the country. Who regulates them? No one. It is for those reasons that we should certainly welcome the regulation of that industry.
The Government seem to seek easy answers to the problems of yob culture, social exclusion and treatment programmes. We welcome many of the measures announced to deal with the situational factors associated with alcohol-related crime and disorder. However, we are concerned that the Government's rhetorical emphasis on the so-called yob culture should not deflect attention from the wider social causes of crime and the importance of tackling social exclusion and addressing the problems which many offenders face.
In that context, we welcome the proposal that ex-prisoners and children leaving care should be classed as priority needs for local authority housing and that councils should carry out a census of rough sleepers once a year. Links between homelessness and crime are well established and lack of access to housing is a major barrier to rehabilitation. Prisoners who are released homeless are more than 2.5 times more likely to reoffend than those with homes to go to. Providing ex-prisoners with accommodation and reducing homelessness will go a long way to reducing crime.
Further changes could be made to the law to tackle homelessness among ex-prisoners. When those who come out of prison have no job and no place to go, the risk of reoffending is very high indeed. Until 1995 housing benefit was available to meet the rent payments of convicted prisoners serving up to 12 months in custody. In April 1995, the rules were changed to limit that provision. For convicted prisoners, housing benefit is available only to those

407
serving up to 13 weeks. Anyone with a sentence exceeding 13 weeks receives no benefit at all. We should like to see restored the right of benefit up to 12 months.
Local housing departments and housing associations should not be permitted to operate blanket bans on offenders or particular groups of offenders in their allocation policies. We are pleased to note that the Government have now begun to address that issue. Housing benefit restrictions which have reduced benefits to below the real level of rents should be reversed. The stock of affordable rented housing in areas where there are shortages should be increased. Increased levels of housing and capital investment should also be made available. Is it not about time that we examined those issues?
But the most contentious issue is legislation restricting trial by jury in certain cases. The Government have suffered major defeats in your Lordships' House and yet they are back to their old tricks. The Government have now established the principle of "two strikes and you are out". They have already had two strikes. Why are they aiming for the third one from your Lordships' House? Is it not time that the Government stopped their insatiable appetite to promote criminal justice legislation? Since Labour came to office, we have had the Crime and Disorder Act, the Criminal Justice and Courts Act, the Criminal Justice (Mode of Trial) Bill, the Football (Offences and Disorder) Act and many other orders. As a prominent politician once said, "Bad laws are difficult to justify. They are even more difficult to implement". The only consolation we have is that some of the measures proposed by the Government will fall by the wayside when the general election is called. Criminal policies should never be based on one-upmanship, or "one-upwomanship", but they should be based on sound research supplemented by care and concern for all people in our society.
5.27 p.m.
Lord Harris of Haringey: My Lords, I am delighted to contribute in today's debate as two of my particular interests in your Lordships' House are coupled neatly together in terms of health and home affairs. I want to endorse also the remarks made by my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath about the legislation to be brought forward in respect of the health service.
Clearly, legislation which will modernise the NHS in line with the NHS plan will, by and large, be extremely beneficial to the users of the health service, who will be placed, perhaps for the first time for many years, at the centre of the organisation of healthcare delivery. When that is coupled with the substantial extra investment that the Government are putting into the NHS, it is clear that there will be a major reshaping of the NHS to meet the standards of care which people expect.
I believe that if we look at the details of what is proposed in the health and social care Bill, we can see that there are many elements there which will make it possible to see and deliver improved performance in
408
respect of local NHS bodies. In particular, powers to provide direct payments to NHS bodies to reward good performance will provide a worthwhile carrot to local health service bodies. Secondly, arrangements in extremis to provide powers to put replacement management teams into failing NHS bodies will perhaps deliver the stick which may on occasions be necessary.
There are also other measures which are long overdue; for example, proposals to make it easier for nurses and other healthcare professionals to prescribe medicines, making nursing care an NHS responsibility and therefore free of charge in all settings. Those are all beneficial and valuable proposals which I am sure your Lordships will want to endorse.
However, I express reservations in respect of what is Chapter 10 in the NHS national plan, which is concerned with providing new arrangements for protecting and representing patients' interests. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, was kind enough to remind the House of the debate that I initiated on the future of community health councils. There was much in what he said in his earlier remarks to your Lorclships that I would endorse absolutely. I make it clear that as a former director of the Association of Community Health Councils I am not blind to the faults that CHCs have and have had in the past. However, I am fascinated by the sudden espousal of the value of community health councils displayed on the Conservative Benches.
I recall that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, of Roding, published a Green Paper that proposed the abolition of CHCs. He had to back down from that in light of the cogent arguments put forward at the time. I also am aware that Kenneth Clarke, when Secretary of State for Health, remarked that he would have abolished CHCs at the same time as he removed local authority representation from health authorities had he realised how little fuss there would have been at that stage. The support for CHCs from the Conservative Benches is a new phenomenon but none the less welcome.
The Government's proposals contain much that is beneficial to the users of the service. The scrutiny role that is to be given to local government will be an extremely important part of the armoury and will ensure that the health service is more accountable. But, if local government and local councillors who will be engaged in those scrutiny exercises have independent resources that are knowledgeable about the local health service, informed by what is going on, by the work that they do on complaints and local advocacy and who would be able to provide and service that scrutiny function on which they could rely, it would be even more effective.
I want to associate myself with the remarks of the noble Earl, who highlighted the problems that there will be in any system of advocacy that is not seen as independent of the local NHS bodies. To have people who are not only paid by the local NHS body, but located within it and seen to be accountable to the chief

409
executive of that body, means that it is highly unlikely that the public will have confidence in the nature of the advocacy that they will receive from that source.
To remove that system of independent support for patients and at the same time to remove the mechanism that allows the work that the CHC carried out in terms of individual representation in responding to consultation, in monitoring what was going on in the service and in integrating that to bring together an informed view of what is happening in the local area is a substantial mistake. That point was aired extensively by Members of this House on all sides in the short debate that we had earlier. I am sure that my noble friend the Minister will have taken that back to his colleagues in the Department of Health.
I trust that he is making progress in convincing them that that would impede what I am sure otherwise would be the serene progress of the Bill when it is introduced into your Lordships' House. I refer to unhelpful references being included in it to abolish CHCs or, if CHCs are to be abolished, what is to replace them must be palpably better and more able to deliver an independent service that is able to operate in a way that integrates all the learning that CHCs currently have.
I want to focus on what has been done in respect of crime and the measures that are outlined in the gracious Speech. We should be delighted that there has been a clear reduction in crime since the last election. The figures suggest that crime overall is down by 10 per cent and that domestic burglary is down by 21 per cent. Those are the lowest levels for a decade.
However, it is important that that progress is maintained across the country and that work is carried out to look at the incidence of violent crime and disorder. Noble Lords may know—I declare this interest—that I chaired the Metropolitan Police Authority, which is responsible for policing in London. Progress has been made. There has been an 8 per cent reduction in burglary since the beginning of the financial year. In some boroughs, but not all, there have been reductions in the incidence of street crime. That may give an indication that the levels are beginning to turn round. That is progress and I am sure that we all support it.
In the measures to be put forward in the coming year, the Government are clear about the importance of what has colloquially been called "cracking down on the yob culture" and giving the police the powers that they need to deal with disorder and crime. On the idea of new fixed penalty notices for offences such as being drunk and disorderly or using insulting words or behaviour, although there may have been initial concerns about the practicalities, as people look at how that may operate it can be seen that it would have beneficial effects which we should all support. I am sure that your Lordships' House will want to support powers to close down disorderly bars, wider powers of arrest and perhaps for the first time powers to tackle kerb-crawling effectively, which are all positive points.
410
It is critical that the police are given the resources to carry forward that work. The Government have been quite clear that spending next year will rise substantially. The proposed figure is some 10 per cent—again the biggest increase for a generation. That is extremely important.
In relation to London, the Mayor of London, who is independent of political party, has announced that he is minded to put forward an increase of 60p per week in the amount that Londoners pay, on average, for police in the capital. For my part, I am clear that if that is to happen, that money should be spent on the improvements in the number of police officers in London. Certainly the intention of the Metropolitan Police Authority is that we should budget for more than 1,000 additional police officers in the London area.
I also want to make it clear that it is essential that those extra police officers are based in the boroughs so that they are visible on the streets of London, which is what Londoners want. Those extra officers must not be allowed to disappear into specialist units at New Scotland Yard.
We must recognise that in the past 10 years—that pre-dates the current government—a number of factors has combined to reduce the visible presence in the boroughs. First, a number of specialist units have been created or expanded. Such specialist units are important and carry out essential work; for example, putting highly trained expertise into murder inquiries or into tackling racist and hate crime. However, a byproduct has been that some of the officers have been transferred from the boroughs.
Secondly, there have been severe problems in recruiting and retaining police officers in the London area, which has led to vacancies. As I speak, the Met is now some 370 officers below establishment. That is being addressed by a substantial pay increase, amounting to some £3,500 in the pay awarded to London officers who are newly recruited. I am pleased to say that there is evidence that the figures for recruitment and retention are improving.
Thirdly, there are comparable levels of vacancies in the civil staff who support the work of police officers. There are about 1,000 such vacancies because of the high turnover. Therefore, about 250 to 300 police officers backfill civil staff vacancies. That means that they cannot be deployed elsewhere because of the work that they have to do in backfilling such vacancies. I hope that tomorrow the police authority will agree a substantial package to improve the pay and conditions for civil staff and that that will ensure that the vacancies can be filled and police officers can be returned to traditional policing duties.
Fourthly, there has been a trend in the past decade for resources to be transferred to the rest of the country. That has seriously affected the Metropolitan Police, with the adoption of the police funding formula which failed adequately to address the needs of London. Two weeks ago in your Lordships' House I referred to the extent to which London subsidises the rest of the country. At that time I said that the subsidy

411
was £19.5 billion. Since then work carried out by the Centre for Economics and Business Research has been published which shows that in fact the subsidy has risen to £22.6 billion a year.
With that level of subsidy being passed from London to the rest of the country, it is surprising that successive governments appear to continue to transfer resources from London to the rest of the country. I do not deny that there are needs in the rest of the country, but that seems to ignore the level of need that exists in London.
London contains some of the most extreme pressures on policing in the country yet the police funding formula continues to penalise London. The impact of that has been not only to push up precepts in London but it has also meant that at the same time there has been reduced policing in the boroughs. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary addressed that by increasing the special grant for London, but I suspect that more needs to be done if the imbalance is to be redressed.
Hand in hand with any increase in the resources to the Metropolitan Police must be a recognition that the efficiency of their operations must be subject to thorough scrutiny. I am aware that it is only a few years ago that the Metropolitan Police Service adopted double entry book-keeping. It may be felt that that is a new concept; that it is not right for the police to rush into it; but that is the case.
The Metropolitan Police Service can and must be streamlined and must improve its processes. It cannot be right that police officers should spend six or seven hours in custody suites to complete paperwork following an arrest. Therefore an investment in technology will help to allevaite those inefficiencies and enable resources to be re-invested in front-line policing. More needs to be done in that area and an external review will need to take place to ensure that that happens.
I note also that there is to be a police Bill. I hope it will be possible to address one other specific problem that exists for police authorities. I refer to the arrangement for the payment of allowances to authority members. I emphasise that I do not have an interest in this, in that members of the London Assembly, like myself, who sit on police authorities are not eligible to claim member's allowances. But the reality is that, certainly for a police authority covering the metropolitan area, members will be spending approximately 100 working days a year on authority business. That is three times what people were originally promised when they applied to become authority members and it will have a severe impact on their existing and future employment. The maximum allowance of time for reading and so forth fails to address that issue, and I hope that an opportunity will be taken in the passage of the Bill to review the matter and ensure, not only in London but also in some other police authorities, that the system of allowances is addressed.
My final point is that it is clear that if we are to address crime in London and elsewhere the work that the Government are putting forward in the gracious
412
Speech in terms of addressing the yob culture must be part of the package. But the other part of the package must be an investment. in resources to divert young people from crime and the provision of direct services to enable young people to avoid the temptations that undoubtedly exist. I hope it will be possible to put forward proposals in that regard, and I want to see the police service playing the fullest possible part in such work.
5.42 p.m.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Kirkham illustrated, I felt in a most moving way, the advantages to a child of being brought up in a. loving family. I hoped that the Government would bring forward proposals in the Queen's Speech which could play a part in strengthening the family.
Mr Blair is a family man and must know that children of parents bound by their marriage vows to a lasting relationship are far more likely to have a stable upbringing and to get a good start in life. He must have read the research which shows that the children of unmarried couples are twice as likely to see their parents split up and that the decline in the institution of marriage has meant more and more children being deprived of a stable upbringing with the consequences of which we are all aware; that is, more of them dropping out of school, failing to hold down a job and some of them drifting into crime.
Yet not only are there no proposals in the gracious Speech to strengthen the family and encourage marriage, but a government Minister, Miss Tessa Jowell, said recently that the Government would not promote marriage as the ideal context for bringing up children for no better reason than that it might upset the offspring of the unmarried as though the assertion of any standard is not likely to upset somebody. All that comes after a Session in which the Prime Minister associated himself with a major attack on the traditional family arid traditional morality by supporting the attempt to repeal Section 28, and on top of the Government forcing through a Bill to reduce the protection which young boys used to have against the intentions of older men minded to prey on them and abuse them. It is sad, and there will be a reaction against that contempt for standards and refusal to give proper protection to young people.
My second disappointment is that there is nothing in the gracious Speech to strengthen Parliament. The Prime Minister has a poor record as a parliamentarian. In fact, he has the worse Division record of any Prime Minister since the war. Time and again he was taken to task by the last Speaker for making important announcements about government policy outside Parliament rather than within. He has diminished Parliament by refusing to allow it to be the forurn, the sounding board of the nation at times of crisis and when momentous decisions have been made. It is astonishing, for instance, that Parliament was not recalled when the fuel protest took place. It is astonishing too that no debate was allowed when the decision was made to commit troops to a European defence force.

413
But recently far worse has happened. Under recent proposals all government Bills will be timetabled. And if business is taken after 10 o'clock at night in the Commons, voting on that business will be postponed until the following Wednesday when the Government supporters will deign to be present at a time convenient to themselves.
If that was all about making Parliament more family friendly it would be bad enough—surely people should not go into the House of Commons to change the rules to make life easier for themselves. But the changes will not just make life easier for the Blair babes to get to bed in good time; it will also make life much easier for the Government, and that is an important point.
Up to now I have always been against an elected Chamber. I broadly supported the proposals of the Wakeham Commission, of which the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Brockwell, who spoke a few minutes ago, was such a distinguished member. But so effective have this Government been in neutering the Commons that I am beginning to wonder whether perhaps I was wrong. The argument for a thoroughgoing constitutional settlement with an elected second Chamber assigned functions which would never be countenanced had it not got a democratic mandate grows stronger as the Commons, far from reforming itself, drifts further into impotence.
I am afraid that to finish I must strike an even more sombre note. Recently the Prime Minister appointed a Minister for Patriotism. That is odd when this Government have spent much time attacking our identity as a nation. If we look at devolution we can study how people now see their country and where their loyalties lie. If we look at the polls on people's attitudes we will see that, since devolution, fewer people look upon themselves as British; that the very word is becoming obsolete as a result of the follies of this Government.
I hope that those who produced the report under the auspices of the Runnymede Trust are not typical. But they did not do much to encourage patriotism and love of Queen and country when they declared, without any foundation of truth, that Britishness has systematic racial connotations. Not much patriotism was shown by Mr Jack Straw—he was responsible for nominating some of the people to that committee—when he talked of the "baggage" of Empire; nor by Mr Blair when, in speech after speech, he derided history.
Those latter day socialists seem to have no comprehension that what we were has made us what we are; that, for instance, the strength of our institutions has, almost alone among European nations, enabled us to escape tyranny and/or conquest; and that it is our imperial past, of which the Commonwealth is the child, it is our ties of history with America and countries throughout the world and the use of the British language throughout the world that enable us to play a role far beyond the shores of Europe.
414
I cannot help but feel that new Labour's complete lack of understanding of these matters is bound to shape, and to some extent does shape, its attitude towards the European Union. I am not saying that this Government have a fixed federalist agenda, but I do say that their general beliefs and attitudes make them pretty relaxed about the European Union taking on more and more of the attributes of a sovereign state. First, it had its own flag; then its own anthem; then its own citizenship; then its own currency; and now its own defence force and constitution. According to what was said by Mr Prodi yesterday, it also has its own capital city.
I am not relaxed about it because if year after year there continues to be a leaching of power from the member states to the centre and never any traffic in the other direction, we will finish up with what Mr Prodi says he wants; a single political unity.
Despite the battering which our national institutions, national identity and patriotism have taken from this Government, I believe that the British people are still proud of the role that we, as a country, can play not only in Europe but world-wide. The British people want us to be in Europe and to have a happy and profitable association with other members of the EU. But I do not believe that they want to see us lose more of our ability to run our own affairs to an ever burgeoning Brussels bureaucracy, let alone see our identity lost in a European state with folk dancing the sole expression of nationality, as in the former Soviet Union.
The British people are not "barking", to use the elegant expression of Mr Patten. They know that we do not have to finish up this way but that it is the way that we could finish up. One day, a Government with a lot more spunk than this one may have to say, "Enough is enough!".
5.52 p.m.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, I want to assure the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, that I have never swerved in my devotion to my country, to my language, to my anthem and to my flag—it just happens to be Welsh. I am pleased that the coalition in Wales of the Liberal Democrat and Labour Parties is forging direct links with Brussels and will continue to do so.
I very much welcome the private security industry Bill which is proposed in the gracious Speech. It has long been the policy of those on these Benches that organisations which are engaged in that industry should be licensed in order to monitor the training, character and integrity of those who are employed in it. However, that is a matter for Monday's Second Reading debate and I do not propose to address the issue any further.
However, another criminal justice Bill is to be introduced to "crack down on yob culture", as the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, put it. The Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 received the Royal Assent on 25th May last. It was declared to be an Act to consolidate the powers of

415
courts to deal with and treat offenders and it contained amendments to give effect to the recommendations of the Law Commission. It ran to 168 sections with eight schedules. It went through this House with little controversy because it was said to tidy up the law.
On 30th November last, a fortnight ago, we had both the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 2000, which amended Section 161 of the previous Act, and the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000 which contained, in Schedule 7, 44 paragraphs of amendments to the consolidating Act of the same year extending over some 10 pages, and in Schedule 8 repealed the whole or part of 23 different sections of an Act which had received Royal Assent only a few months before.
The criminal justice system cannot take that constant shaking around. It takes time for legislation to settle down and for the courts and agencies involved to come to some conclusions as to whether the latest fashionable solutions work. Crime prevention measures have been introduced. Although the Home Secretary provided a significant and substantial budget of some £383 million to deal with that, only 2 per cent of it was spent in the first year. And now we are off again!
This time, the Home Secretary finally recognises that the introduction of curfew orders for the under 10s was a mistake. I opposed the Motion that Section 14, which contained that provision, should stand part of the Crime and Disorder Bill. In the debate on 10th February 1998, I said that the whole of the proposed scheme for the under-10s was cumbersome and ineffective. Chief constables, local authorities and magistrates have clearly felt the same because no orders have been made.
Now, without any piloting or consultation, it is proposed to extend that type of curfew to 10 to 16 year-olds. It is objectionable in principle that young people who have done nothing wrong are to be cleared off the streets simply by reason of their age and the fact that one, two or three other young people of the same age have been engaged in trouble. In practical terms, the huge cost in time and resources can be so much more constructively directed. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark referred to the twin pillars of order: the police and the co-operation of the public. The one needs the other. One cannot demonise young people while young people demonise the police. One simply cannot change the way of life, habits, attitudes and recreations of young people by wielding the big stick of the criminal law and the criminal justice system.
At night, young people have taken over the streets. That is the case throughout the country, not simply in inner city areas. They are ebullient, full of life, occasionally aggressive and they drink too much. There is nothing particularly new in that. MVVD—multi-volume vertical drinking, to which the noble Lord, Lord Warner, referred—was not unknown in my rugby club. I remember it in my youth. Indeed, going further back, I remember that my father, when he policed the streets of Wrexham, North Wales, was
416
involved in various fracas. He once told me, "Never run to a fight. Always walk". That was one of his precepts. On another occasion he told me that once when policing with a young, chapel-going police constable from up country and engaged in a fight in York Street, Wrexham, his colleague said, "'old me coat, Hywel, I 'ave me rights as well", and, in his shirt sleeves, laid in with a will. Therefore, such incidents were not unknown in the past.
Perhaps today young people have more money in their pockets, but the idea that the police should go around creating no-go areas, arresting youngsters, spending time finding out who they are, questioning their excuses for being on the street when a curfew order is in operation and then taking them home afterwards is ludicrous—just as imposing on-the-spot fines is ludicrous. One has only to think of the situation in which a young person is so aggressive or drunk that a policeman feels that he must interfere and speak to him. Is that the moment to remove money from his pocket? Clearly, it is not.
I have no illusions about young people today. I was involved in the Philip Lawrence case and in the more recent Hungerford Bridge case where two students were thrown into the river. I know of the effects on young people of too much money, drugs, drink, truanting and so forth.
The problem to be addressed is one of attitudes. However, the measures which have already been introduced to deal with certain youngsters, for example, parenting and anti-social behaviour orders—not a specific ban—have not as yet been tried or properly assessed. When they were introduced in various pieces of legislation I suggested that they were merely gimmicks, but as yet we have not seen the effects of those orders. The pilot schemes of other initiatives which we supported, such as youth offending teams, are only now beginning to be assessed by the six national evaluators headed by Dr Norman Davidson. Experiments are beginning with intensive supervision and surveillance programmes to target hard core repeat young offenders in the main metropolitan areas.
Projects in restorative justice are being considered in Brixton to deal with bullying and street robbery, and the Youth Justice Board is to co-operate with organisers of the Philip Lawrence Award to recognise outstanding collective achievements by young people in active citizenship. Had the noble Lord, Lord Warner, been in his seat I would have said how much I had been impressed by the direction in which he had steered the Youth Justice Board, of which he is chairman. I am so impressed that I had hoped he would have said one word to challenge the Government's new proposals, as did the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey. Unfortunately, in that I was disappointed.
There are many positive initiatives currently under way. I refer to the youth inclusion programmes of NACRO, to which my noble friend Lord Dholakia alluded, that involve young people in constructive activity. In Wales NACRO CYMRU is engaged in

417
advising the National Assembly in building a crime and disorder strategy for Wales. Those initiatives begun by the Government—they deserve credit for that—are the areas towards which resources should now be fully directed. Resources should not be diverted to new gimmicks which is the apparent danger in the proposed Bill.
Yob culture is unpleasant, irritating, invasive and anti-social but it is not the core of crime in this country. The real problem is the pervasive drug culture which is illegal, dangerous and uncontrolled. There is room for serious debate as to whether the public interest is best served by maintaining that culture underground to the huge financial advantage of drug barons who control their empires with blood and sometimes, in my direct experience, death. So much burglary, theft, street violence and criminal activity of all kinds is attributable to our failure to tackle the problem face on. I do not know for how long responsible politicians can avoid the need at least to ascertain the facts and consider the options by means of a royal commission, for which we on these Benches have long called.
If we must have yet further legislation, I hope that when the Bill is published it will be positive and constructive. What we do not want, and shall oppose, is another Dutch auction, to use the phrase of my noble friend Lord Dholakia, between the Home Secretary and the Shadow Home Secretary on crime and punishment issues. In that category comes the renewed mode of trial Bill which cannot become law before the general election and will be overtaken by the Auld report which is imminent. This measure merely smacks of personal machismo on the part of the Home Secretary. To bring back that proposal in the Queen's Speech is empty posturing. If the Government concentrate on the good things that they have done and really tackle the drugs crisis and forget the baubles in the shop window because of an impending election they shall have our support.
6.5 p.m.
Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate: My Lords, in rising to welcome the contents of the gracious Speech, I congratulate the father of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. Based on my experience, he was obviously a very wise police officer.
When I was preparing my speech I was visited by some friends who had a minimal interest in politics and constitutional matters. They saw that I was busy in my study and asked what I was doing. I replied that I was busy with the Queen's Speech. I was tremendously honoured to be asked in all seriousness, "Is that the one that she makes on Christmas Day?" Chance would be a fine thing!
Since coming to power this Government have placed on the statute book numerous measures to help local communities to win back the streets from people who commit crime and cause disorder. They include new final warnings for young offenders, anti-social behaviour orders for persistent troublemakers who intimidate witnesses and victims and measures to
418
tackle social exclusion. Partnership between the police and other local agencies is at the heart of the Crime and Disorder Act and is working well in most areas.
My many years' experience as an operational police officer indicate that we need to do more, and I believe that the measures in the gracious Speech take forward the objective of making the streets safer for all our citizens. The noble Lord, Lord Thomas, said that that was not the real concern. However, that is the major concern of people in this country. Surveys reveal that people are not concerned about serious crime but the quality of life on the street. For example, they cannot walk along the street without being disturbed, pushed off the pavement, or seeing people urinate in doorways, being drunk and swearing. That is the perceived problem.
Everyone was horrified by the recent tragic murder of Damilola Taylor. At the heart of that tragic murder is a culture of bullying at school and in the community. I remember well my maiden speech in this House in October 1998 which, ironically, addressed the question of bullying in secondary schools. I said then, and repeat now, that bullying occurred in all walks of life and should be treated extremely seriously. One of the difficulties lies in finding out that bullying is taking place. Police officers are only too well aware that victims or witnesses are frightened of being labelled as grasses or snitches. Individuals, quite understandably, believe that they may be intimidated because they have told the authorities what is going on.
My maiden speech has particular relevance to the proposed measures to help make our town centres safer and to deal with so-called drunken yobs. I said then:
"My experience both as a child and as a police officer is that those who bully prey on the weak and have to be stood up to. Appeasement, as with blackmail demands, does not work with bullies. As a policeman I found that in dealing with an incident the one thing you never did was bark unless you were prepared to bite. If there was the glimmer of a suggestion [when dealing with a group of so-called yobs] that you were not going to carry out what you had suggested if the person did not desist from what they were doing, then you had lost the game…In the same context bullying has to be confronted. Of that I have little doubt".—[Official Report, 6/10/98: col. 326.]
Those comments are relevant to the measures in the Crime and Disorder Act, but they are even more apposite to the proposals announced last Wednesday. The police are given more power to bite, not just bark. They can bite if they need to do so, but officers use discretion. We are talking about new powers immediately to close licensed premises where disorder occurs and more effective powers available to the police and local authorities to ban on-street drinking, which is a source of endless trouble and reduces residents' quality of life. I refer particularly to the elderly in many communities. There are proposed powers to enable the police to issue fixed penalty notices in respect of a range of offences of disorderly conduct in order to hit often well-heeled yobs where it hurts—in their drinking fund. The noble Lord, Lord Thomas, referred to taking money from the youths concerned. I am sure that the noble Lord is aware that

419
that is not part of the proposal. Marching people to cashpoints was an original suggestion which was rightly dismissed as a nonsense.
Noble Lords have referred to the amount of time taken by police officers in processing a prisoner in the police station after arrest. The provision allows the police not to issue a fixed penalty in the street—they could if they wanted, but I suggest that if it is a violent incident the person concerned would be arrested—but at the police station, perhaps after the prisoner has sobered up the following morning. He would be given the option of accepting the fixed penalty as opposed to going to court. That makes eminent sense because the police officer can go straight back out and carry on policing the streets, which is what he is paid to do.
The gracious Speech provides for regulation of bouncers and door supervisors to ensure that they are not involved in committing crime and creating disorder. There is evidence that some of those people get involved in—as the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, rightly mentioned—the selling and supplying of drugs. It will be a great help if we can regulate the people in that industry.
There is the power to arrest kerb crawlers in some of our cities and towns who cause such misery and embarrassment to innocent women going about their lawful business. Again, that is a quality of life issue.
There is the power, where it is needed, to impose curfews on those under 16. Perhaps there has been some misunderstanding with regard to that. Where youngsters are causing problems, which may be because of home conditions or circumstances at home which are causing them to react, the idea is to take them back home and find out what the circumstances are. That will cause a kick-in of the provisions. Perhaps the conditions can be looked at and the youngsters can be kept on the straight and narrow.
Some of the scenes on Friday and Saturday nights in our town centres are a disgrace to a civilised community. In this country, quite rightly, there should not be any "no go" areas. The police should have the powers they need to deal with those problems. Therefore, I welcome the Government's proposals.
I have long complained of the lack of regulation of the private security industry. At this stage I should declare an interest as the president of the Joint Security Industry Council and also as vice-president of an organisation called EPIC. That is an organisation of ex-police officers, many of whom are involved in the security industry. I also have two non-executive directorships in security companies.
I recall Sir John Stevens, then Chief Constable of Northumberland and now the Commissioner, producing a wealth of research which showed a remarkable number of people operating in the private security industry with serious convictions for dishonesty and, in some cases, murder and rape. The private security industry has a key part to play in reducing crime. These measures are welcomed by those responsible organisations in the security industry. It is an industry that employs thousands of people—far more than the police service—and by driving out the
420
crooks and cowboys standards will inevitably improve. It is to be hoped that the new measures will root out the criminals who often work in positions of trust.
I hope that the establishment of a private security authority will achieve the success that the Gaming Board did some 30 years ago. It snatched the gambling industry in this country from the jaws of gangsters such as the Krays and the Richardsons. It created—I am proud of this—the cleanest and most respected gaming regime in the world.
I recall following a van on the M1 recently. The van bore the legend on its side, "Nazir Ali & Son, Security Consultants". Then it said, "You've tried the cowboys—now try the Indians"! It is to be hoped that the Bill will eradicate the cowboys.
Finally, we have probably all suffered from car crime at some stage in our lives. That has been targeted by the police and it has fallen by 15 per cent since the last election. The Bill will crack down even further by protecting the motorist from car theft and removing, again, the cowboys from the car salvage trade. It is big business. Each year 12.000 stolen vehicles are never recovered. Many are resold with a new identity. Again I should declare an interest as a consultant with a company which provides indelible, covert encryption on vehicles and other property.
Recently my son had his car stolen. It was a brand new, quite expensive car. The thieves broke into his house while he was in bed to steal the keys of the car. At about 4 a.m. he was woken up by the police asking him if he could check and see if his car was there. He had a tracker device fitted to the car which was triggered as soon as the car was driven away. The thieves were arrested and he got his car back in mint condition, so he was quite happy with the circumstances. But that illustrates the measures that can be taken if we think carefully about the matter.
The vehicle theft measures will help the police to achieve the challenging target set for them of a 30 per cent reduction in crime by 2004.
I conclude by recalling the craze in the North East of ram-raiding where vehicles were driven into shop windows to steal the contents to make a rapid getaway. I am not proud that the craze started on Tynesicle. But fortunately some of those lads were not very bright. I remember two of them committing their first offence and escaping with goods worth about £700 About a week later Jimmy said to Geordie, "I'm a bit short. Let's do another ram-raid". "To hell with that", said Geordie, "Last time it cost me £1,000 to get my car repaired". That illustrates that the police have some advantages in the people they are dealing with. Would that all wrongdoers were of that calibre. I commend the provisions in the gracious Speech to your Lordships' House.
6.17 p.m.
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, the gracious Speech signalled a health and social care Bill to implement the NHS Plan. 1 shall not address the patient care and health aspects of the NHS Plan; many in your

421
Lordships' House are much better qualified than I am to do that. I should like to talk about the management in the NHS. Getting management right in the NHS is critical to the delivery of patient care. Managers need to be free to manage. We cannot expect managers to cope with the complex agenda of delivering patient care while constantly looking towards the centre to see who is watching them and measuring them and waiting for them to fail. That takes the eye off the ball and does not encourage effective management.
The NHS Plan says that it believes in maximum devolution of power. It says that the centre will not try to take every last decision. It says that there will be progressively less central control and progressively more devolution. Those are laudable aims, but will they be realised?
The NHS Plan created a Modernisation Agency with responsibility to spread best practice and stimulate change. That too sounds like a good idea. Who could argue with spreading best practice? But the Modernisation Agency is in addition to other central agencies or bodies with similar agendas. There are the regional offices of the NHS and the new Commission for Health Improvement, not to mention the National Institute for Clinical Excellence and the Audit Commission. What is an NHS manager to make of that? To how many bodies will he or she have to report?
There is always a tension between the right size and style of activities at the centre compared with those locally. I am concerned that the resources being siphoned off to support the new Modernisation Agency and the Commission for Health Improvement may not be best use of NHS resources. How many people and how much extra money will be absorbed by those bodies? What value for patients will they deliver?
Another part of the plan is the creation of a system of earned autonomy linked to a traffic-light system of red, yellow and green. The principle is easy to understand: let the good performers get on with it and concentrate efforts on the rest. The worst performing organisations—those with red status— will be the most heavily interfered with. They will have the reverse of earned autonomy. The red light bodies will have more interference—more visits from the Commission for Health Improvement, heavier involvement from the regional offices and more oversight from the modernisation agency. The Government have already decided that 25 per cent of health bodies will have red status and so one in four will get that kind of interference. Is this really a plan based on devolution of power?
And how, precisely, will NHS bodies be classified into green, yellow and red? This is hugely important. My noble friend Lord Howe referred to the categorisation by the King's Fund in last week's Health Service Journal using criteria outlined in the NHS Plan. It showed a marked regional bias, with most of the red status bodies being in the deprived areas of the north and most of the green status bodies
422
being in the south. Is that really what the Government intend? I do not believe that the distribution of management skills follows that geographic pattern.
There are many detailed questions. How often will categorisations be checked? Will there be appeal procedures for health bodies which believe that they have been unfairly rated? Who will review the arbitrary percentages? What additional resources will be used in operating this system, as this too will suck money away from patient care? Significant sums of NHS money will be held back from the general system of resource allocation for a new performance fund—eventually £500 million a year; a vast amount, enough to build three or four new hospitals every year. That will be dished out according to the traffic lights. Are the Government satisfied that there are robust systems to measure performance in the NHS to underpin this system? Do those systems command the support and respect of the NHS bodies affected? Are the Government happy that the money will be used effectively? How can the NHS bodies plan if they are worried that the lights might suddenly change from yellow to red or from green to red?
I understand that already in this current year a significant amount of performance money is being held back for allocation to bodies based on how well they are doing. Is that system working well in practice? Is it directing performance funds to the most deserving health bodies? Will that system, with which the NHS is becoming familiar, underpin the new, much more ambitious, £500 million performance fund? If that is not the case, precisely what system will be used? Many people in the NHS need answers to those questions.
Improving the performance of the NHS is a nonparty matter. We all want to see a path towards an NHS which constantly improves its performance and delivers more and better patient care. But we must be careful to ensure that the involvement of the centre is well designed and involves as little central intervention as possible. I do not make a case for no intervention. That is unrealistic. But I do make a case for devoting the bare minimum amount of resources to central activities, thus maximising the money available for patients. At the end of the day, patient care and health improvement are delivered by the front-line staff, supported by their managers. A worthy aim should be to liberate those managers and keep the heavy hand of the centre as far away as possible.
6.24 p.m.
Baroness Linklater of Butterstone: My Lords, I have followed with interest those parts of the Queen's Speech which relate to crime. The emphasis on addressing certain aspects of the problems of crime in our society is of course to be welcomed. The attempt to do something about the unacceptable anti-social behaviour and alcohol-related violence which makes life such a misery for our law-abiding citizens should be supported—such as giving councils greater powers to ban drinking in some public places and tougher action on publicans who repeatedly flout the law. Giving priority to children leaving care and to ex-prisoners for local authority housing is likely to

423
impinge significantly on the incidence of crime, since the correlation between homelessness and crime is well established.
However, as we have already heard, the proposal to impose curfews on those under 16 years of age is much more complicated. Not only is the problem of the adequacy of police manpower to implement such a scheme a very real one, but also the potential for damaging delicate relations between the police and very difficult young people is high. Curfews would simply have the effect of pushing the problem out of sight while doing little to address the causes of it. However, I do know of a scheme initiated by the police in Hamilton, Scotland, that has been successful. It has cut crime on the streets after dark and has helped to protect youngsters at risk. It has also involved the police in very positive initiatives such as a football club for children who otherwise had nothing to do. But they—the police—do not see this initiative as a curfew. It is, rather, an exercise in child protection, which is very different. If the Government were able to make it possible for similar initiatives to happen in England and Wales, they would have our support.
However, there are existing trends in this country relating to the imprisonment of children and young people which the Queen's Speech does absolutely nothing to address and which should be of the greatest concern to each and every one of us. I really wonder whether Members of your Lordships' House or people in the country at large are aware that we are now locking up children of 12, 13 and 14 years of age in detention and training centres which are essentially child prisons and that we are doing so at an increasing rate. There is an important distinction to be made between detention and training centres and local authority secure units. The former represent the nearest equivalent to prison, where the regime has a punitive rationale and the children are called "trainees". The latter, which cater for exactly the same group of highly disruptive, dysfunctional and even dangerous children who have all committed imprisonable offences, have a therapeutic rationale.
According to the Youth Justice Board, on 5th December there were 93 children of 14 years and under in detention and training centres and a further 49 aged 15 and 16, making a total of 142. I believe that figure to be 142 too many. I am well aware that since the Youth Justice Board began its work in setting up youth offending teams the general thrust has been to address offending behaviour, to promote non-custodial penalties and to start to implement the principles of restorative justice, all of which are greatly to be welcomed. But despite those aspirations, the reality is that we are imprisoning more children and young people than ever before, and the younger the child the faster the rate of increase.
The population of 15 to 17 year-old boys has more than doubled since 1993 and about 12 per cent more under 18 year-olds are being detained than a year ago. The figure for girls is even worse. Their numbers have increased fivefold since 1993, and despite a commitment from the Government that after April, 15 and 16 year-old girls would not be held in prison but
424
in local authority care, that has not happened. if you then set that against a background, according to the Office for National Statistics, of between a third and a half being functionally illiterate and innumerate and, worse still, nine out of 10 young offenders having a mental disorder, it serves to illustrate how wholly inappropriate detention and training centres are in their very concept. It is also not surprising I hat: three boys have committed suicide in prisons since the Youth Justice Board took over in April.
After the Medway Secure Training Centre opened in 1998 and was forced to close less than a year later following a fire, it was the subject of a highly critical report. It then reopened, despite strong recommendations from many quarters that it should not do so. It was followed by two more STCs. all in the teeth of evidence that these regimes do not and cannot help such children to change their behaviour and attitudes and thus stop their anti-social and criminal ways. Instead, they reinforce them. The recent follow-up inspection at Medway noted improvements, but also indicated that there was a long way to go. These institutions are far too big and far too remote from the homes of the children who are sent there. The lack of adequate numbers of experienced professional care staff means that achieving anything lastingly positive is an impossible task.
Local authority secure units provide all these elements, at a fraction of the cost, which is around an unbelievable sum of £2,500 per week in DTCs. Local authority units must comply with the Children Act which, if noble Lords will forgive the acronyms, DTCs and YOls do not. For those children who do need to be locked up—I certainly believe that there are those who need to be in a secure unit for the public safety and for their own safety, and as a children's panel member in Scotland I have on a number of occasions committed young people to secure accommodation—then it is these units which need to be made available in much larger numbers.
In March this year, a Written Answer from the Home Secretary stated that local authority secure units have to keep some places free and unavailable to the Youth Justice Board "for welfare purposes", thus making the distinction between those who offend and those who do not. I am glad to say that in Scotland, where no child under the age of 15 is imprisoned, and very few under the age of 16—even then, only briefly—the children's panel system makes no distinction, but regards all children in trouble, whether or not with the law, as in need of help with their welfare.
It is little wonder that the Children's Society, which just the other day produced a report called Tough Justice, has urged that no children under the age of 18 should be imprisoned anywhere. These people work at the coalface, as it were, as I did at one time. They have a deep understanding of the problems. Furthermore, we should greatly welcome the wholehearted endorsement of the report from the Archbishop of Canterbury. The noble Lord, Lord Warner, who is not in his place, feels that this is "unrealistic". If the limitations of knowledge and understanding and, indeed, the imagination of sentencers and the Youth

425
Justice Board are such that they cannot imagine that measures of public safety and the management of persistent young offenders could possibly exclude imprisonment, then the future is indeed grim. Imprisonment provides momentary relief by taking children and young people off the streets, which in the current jargon is called "incapacitation", and further compounds the problem it purports to solve, both for the public and the offender. The irony is that, while imprisonment is relatively momentary, the subsequent incapacitation of the young person is not.
We have a solution in the local authority secure units for those who need to be removed in the interests of public safety, and we have a wide range of community penalties which do attempt to address the core of the problem. We must stop demonising our children and locking them away in greater numbers and at greater expense than almost any other European country, believing that there is no effective alternative, because there is.
Finally, I believe that it is also a question of common humanity. In these tearaways, for whom violence and aggression is a common, casual and routine experience, such behaviour must always be condemned and never condoned. But the behaviour is not synonymous with the individual. The individual in this case is a child who, like all children, has a fundamental need to be cherished—somehow. Meanwhile, what we are currently doing is ineffective, counter-productive and wrong.
6.35 p.m.
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: My Lords, as we jump between health and home affairs, I am tempted to begin with a topic which bridges the two. I think both noble Lords on the Front Bench may be aware of my interest in the effects of diet on criminal behaviour. I was particularly pleased to see a mention of this in the Committee on Toxicity's report in July on Adverse Reactions to Food and Food Ingredients, which the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, was good enough to bring to my attention when it came out. Although the committee rather played down the evidence, and the Home Office has never been too keen on it anyway, it was good to see the link made in its recommendations for research, especially in the area of childhood hyperactivity. I believe that mainstream recognition of this factor, in some behavioural problems at least, is long overdue.
But it is about other "alternative" approaches that I principally want to speak this afternoon, in the hope of discovering more about the Government's policy towards complementary and alternative medicine. CAM, as we are now learning to call it, was the subject of a recent inquiry by a sub-committee of the House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology, on which I was fortunate to serve as a co-opted member. It is noticeable that CAM is still barely mentioned in policy documents. It was not, perhaps understandably, in the gracious Speech; not, so far as
426
I could find, in the recent NHS Plan, nor even in the more recent NHS Cancer Plan—despite the fact that about one-third of all cancer patients use complementary therapies, and possibly the same proportion of patients in general.
What our committee has done, most ably chaired by my noble friend Lord Walton of Detchant, is to map out a way forward under a number of headings, notably regulation, professional training, research, information and delivery. We shall have the opportunity to debate our report in due course, so it would be wrong to go into detail today; but it would be useful if the Minister could give the House an idea of the Government's thinking on some of these fronts.
Much of what we recommend is, I hope, good common sense. Therapy bodies need to organise themselves better and more transparently, and put in place proper systems of regulation, which in many cases need not be statutory. Practising doctors and non-medical practitioners need to work more closely together and train to the same standards, under independent accreditation. Medical schools need nowadays to familiarise their students with CAM, so that doctors will know at least as much about the possibilities as their patients. CAM practitioners need to be better schooled in evidence-based medicine. Access to therapies on the NHS should continue to be through GP referral.
Where we have asked the Government to step in is in two areas where we felt there would be little progress unless they did, to the disadvantage of patients at large. The first is research. It is true that in the past some therapists, not usually from the major disciplines such as acupuncture or osteopathy, have been reluctant to test what they have been doing in a methodical way. Now the problem is more to do with a lack of infrastructure, know-how, and especially of funding. We ask the NHS R&D Directorate and the Medical Research Council specifically to pump-prime this area with some dedicated funding to create a few integrated centres of excellence, on the successful American model. This would do more towards discovering what works for what conditions, and how safely and economically, than any other approach. I believe it has the potential to pay handsome dividends in public health, and I very much hope that the Government share this vision.
The second area is information. As we say in our report,
"We see the NHS as the natural home in the United Kingdom for reliable, non-promotional information on all types of healthcare".
It is quite difficult for patients to get good information on CAM at the moment. They already ask their GPs about it, which involves the health service willy-nilly. Through a combination of NHS Direct, the National Electronic Health Library, the NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, the UK Cochrane Centre and the British Library, working together with CAM

427
bodies such as the Research Council for Complementary Medicine, the field could be well covered to the benefit of all. I very much hope that the Minister can give an encouraging reply about that as well.
I turn lastly to the vexed matter of water fluoridation. In the 1999 White Paper, Saving Lives: Our Healthier Nation, the Government announced that they were setting in motion an,
"up-to-date expert scientific review of fluoride and health".
Possible legislation was foreshadowed. Partly because of the many questions I had tabled on this topic, and the debate in my name in December 1998, I found myself on the advisory board to the review team at the NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination at York, in close contact with the scientific process from the summer of 1999 to the publication of the final report on 6th October this year.
The expectation of the dental and medical authorities, and it is fair to say of the Government also, was that the safety arid effectiveness of fluoridation would be confirmed. That expectation was disappointed. In addressing the five principal questions that were asked, the report is studded with phrases such as "limited quantity", "moderate quality", "a small number of studies", "needs further clarification", "surprising to find that little high quality research has been undertaken", "insufficient quality to allow confident statements", "not…enough good quality evidence…to reach conclusions". Important gaps in the evidence base were identified.
I pay tribute to the Government for having agreed to institute a high-quality scientific review…the first and only systematic, that is unbiased, assessment of the evidence in half a century of water fluoridation. I pay tribute to them for now taking steps, through the Medical Research Council, to put some much-needed research in hand, not before time. I cannot, however, pay tribute to the dental lobby in the aftermath of the York report.
I am aware that many of your Lordships have had briefings from the British Dental Association, the British Fluoridation Society and/or the National Association for Equity in Dental Health. I am aware, as we all are, that briefings by professional bodies, including professors of dentistry, carry weight with the public, are likely to be believed and therefore bear a particular responsibility for accuracy. These briefings and press releases are little short of extraordinary.
I have collated four pages of statements culled from these documents, with alongside them for comparison quotations from the text of the report itself. I can give the flavour of them in two or three short examples. I have placed copies in the Library for those who would like to read more.
The British Dental Association says,
"The report confirms that there is clear evidence that fluoridation reduces [decay]";
the report says,
"To have clear confidence in the ability to answer [this] question—the quality of the evidence would need to be higher".
428
The British Dental Association says,
"There is no evidence that…fluoridation is linked to cancer, bone disease or any other adverse effect";
and,
"The report confirms that fluoridation reduces dental health inequalities";
the report says,
"The research evidence is of insufficient quality to allow confident statements about other potential harms [than dental fluorosis] or whether there is an impact on social inequalities".
The British Fluoridation Society says,
"If there were any adverse effects—it is inconceivable that the York review would have missed them";
the York review says,
"Some possible adverse effects…may take years to develop and so…the relationship may go undetected",
and,
"High quality research [into adverse effects]…is needed".
One might have thought, if one did not know that fluoridation had been an article of dental faith for fifty years, that this was simply carelessness. Such a thought is dispelled when one finds a wrong figure quoted for seriously mottled teeth, which could only be cited by the author having read, and misinterpreted, some of the very small print.
This is an important public health issue. It is not the Government who are likely to be misled by such inaccurate statements—at least I hope not—so much as local councils, the public and, dare I say it, Members of Parliament, who have even been urged to put down Questions on this false basis. It is essential to put the record straight. Anyone in doubt about the facts should, as always, go to primary sources. The York report is a long one, but the summary and conclusions are only four pages each and are not hard to understand. I would urge any noble Lord who is thinking of tabling Questions not to rely on briefings, whether from dentists or opponents, but to go to the report itself.
Because I am known to oppose the fluoridation of water, I have taken the greatest care to keep in step with the leading scientists at York and to write and say nothing in interpretation of their report which goes beyond the evidence. I have the permission of Professor Sheldon, the founding director of the NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination at York, who chaired the advisory board which oversaw the whole review process, to quote him as follows.
"It is particularly worrying…that statements which mislead the public about the review's findings have been made in press releases and briefings by the British Dental Association, the National Alliance for Equity in Dental Health and the British Fluoridation Society. I should like to correct some of these errors".
He continues:

"1. Whilst there is evidence that water fluoridation is effective at reducing caries, the quality of the studies was generally moderate and the size of the estimated benefit, only of the order of 15%, is far from 'massive'.

"2. The review found water fluoridation to be significantly associated with high levels of dental fluorosis, which was not characterised as just a 'cosmetic issue'.

429

"3. The review did not show water fluoridation to be safe. The quality of the research was too poor to establish with confidence whether or not there are potentially important adverse effects in addition to the high levels of fluorosis. The report recommended that more research was needed.

"4. There was little evidence to show that water fluoridation has reduced social inequalities in dental health".

I shall skip most of what follows and just give Professor Sheldon's final point. He states:
"The review team was surprised that in spite of the large number of studies carried out over several decades there is a dearth of `reliable' evidence with which to inform policy. Until high quality studies are undertaken…there will continue to be legitimate scientific controversy over the likely effects and costs of water fluoridation".
My only questions to the Minister, in the light of the state of the evidence as set out by one of the two principal scientists involved in the review and of these extraordinary briefing papers, are whether the Government still think it appropriate, first, to go on making financial contributions to the British Fluoridation Society, and, secondly, to encourage certain health authorities, as they have said that they would, to consider water fluoridation schemes. The noble Lord would also do me a good turn if he could secure for me a reply from his colleague the Secretary of State to the personal letter I wrote to him on this matter on 5th August, repeated on 7th October, and reminded again on 14th November. With fluoridation, things tend to take a long time.
6.48 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford: My Lords, I welcome the continued and much needed investment of Her Majesty's Government in the National Health Service and in the health of our nation generally.
One prime example is the encouragement of a move towards care trusts. This is a vital step in attempting to see that individuals do not fall into the gaps in provision between health and social care. It is often the most vulnerable who do so. Indeed, "Mind the gap"—the echo of the Underground platforms—might be a good motto for the Secretary of State to bear in mind. We surely all look to a seamlessness in care provision as an ideal for which to aim.
It is a gap in the care of the whole person upon which I wish to comment. The Secretary of State, when outlining plans to improve GPs' surgeries, particularly in the inner cities, reminded us that primary care is the first port of call for patients. Indeed, it is within primary care that we have the greatest opportunity to make a lasting difference to the well-being of individuals and strengthen the fabric of communities. But, as I look ahead, I see an increasing risk of isolation and a loss of a caring community for many people. Isolation, of course, leads to the disintegration of health and of order and cohesion in society, for no one is an island.
With the decline of the traditional supportive family unit, increasing numbers of single-person households, an ageing population, the proliferation of headphones and mobile phones in the street, of dot.com shopping
430
and the information technology revolution, care of the whole person—body, mind, spirit, emotions and relationships—has never been so important.
Of concern is the fact that primary care within the National Health Service is ill-equipped to improve matters. Healthcare is becoming increasingly fragmented. Shopping precinct drop-in surgeries, NHS Direct, large GP co- operatives, developments in information technology, increasing medical specialisation, even in general practice, have all come about with good reason, but they have greatly increased the chance of an individual patient falling into the gaps through a lack of consultation and joined-up care.
Time pressures in traditional general practice mean that consultations are all too brief and there is little chance to listen carefully to the many factors—disease of body, mind, spirit, emotions and relationships—that can precipitate ill health. All these factors can inform the medical diagnosis.
People need to be heard, understood, believed and valued. Perhaps that is one reason why increasing numbers are turning to complementary medicine and alternative approaches to healing and good health—the noble Earl touched on CAM. They receive a particular treatment which may or may not be helpful but, above all, they are buying attention and time to be heard. It must also be a cause for concern that many therapists are unregulated and have no medical training. They may be unable to draw together the signs and symptoms that become evident and a key diagnosis may be delayed.
I recently chaired a House of Bishops working party, which included members of the medical and healthcare professions, to assess the state of the ministry of healing in the Church of England in the contemporary healthcare context. The substantial report—some 400 pages—A Time to Heal was published in May this year. Many of the recommendations, together with a Guide to Good Practice which was sent to all clergy in the Church of England, reflect the need for a multi-disciplinary approach to healthcare that overtly includes the spiritual dimension that is so frequently overlooked or ignored. If life becomes more isolationist and lacks the meaning that community brings, then spiritual loss and pain will become increasingly significant, often manifesting itself through the only acceptable route—that of physical pain and sickness.
The importance of a multi-disciplinary approach to healthcare was brought home to me not long ago when I confirmed a patient in the neurological ward of one of our hospitals in the diocese. It was a moving, communal occasion, as the other patients, the nurses, the neurosurgeon and the manager of the unit, as well as the chaplaincy team shared in the simple service, all of us united in care for the wholeness of the patient.
I believe that the training of doctors, nurses, clergy and theological students in the pastoral and spiritual aspects of collaborative healthcare and ethics will become increasingly necessary. I urge Her Majesty's Government, when looking to take forward the

431
implementation of the NHS modernisation plan, to give higher priority to the spiritual vacuum, malaise and pain, the search for meaning by many people in our nation today and its interaction with our health and our community cohesion. There is a need for time to be given and for greater continuity to be offered within primary care.
At the end of the day, modern, efficient surgeries will have a limited impact on health. Providing training in pastoral and spiritual care and time for hard-pressed doctors and nurses and all those involved in social and healthcare to offer more truly joined-up treatment and care will be a vital step in reversing the trends to which I have alluded. If that happens, "Mind the gap" will no longer be an echo that points to deficiencies in our NHS provision.
6.56 p.m.
Baroness Gale: My Lords, I was pleased to note that the Children's Commissioner for Wales Bill was included in the gracious Speech. I had personal satisfaction in seeing the Bill published yesterday. In my previous role as general secretary of the Labour Party in Wales, I helped to draw up the Labour Party manifesto for the Welsh Assembly elections in 1999. One of our commitments in the manifesto was to the introduction of a children's commissioner for Wales.
A Children's Commissioner for Wales was the first recommendation of the Waterhouse Report on child abuse in North Wales, presented to Parliament in February this year. This measure is included in the Care Standards Act and is now being put into effect. The Children's Commissioner, Peter Clarke, has been appointed and will soon take up his post. He is a man of great experience; and I am sure that everyone in Wales will welcome his appointment and wish him every success in his demanding new post.
The new Bill will extend the power and role of the children's commissioner. The interesting point about the new measure is that it came into being as a result of close co- operation between the Assembly and Westminster. The Bill is based on the recommendations of the Assembly's Health and Social Services Committee in its report, A Children's Commissioner for Wales, published in May this year.
This is an excellent example of devolution working at its best. Those of us who campaigned for devolution for many years can now see the benefits. The introduction of the Bill shows clearly that the Government are prepared to embrace the central concept of devolution—with different parts of the United Kingdom tackling today's important issues in their own ways. It is the first example of "Wales only" primary legislation since the establishment of the Welsh Assembly. It shows, too, that the partnership is working well: I pay tribute to the Secretary of State for Wales for his commitment and dedication in ensuring that the wishes of the Assembly were listened to and are now included in the Bill.
The idea of a children's commissioner is an excellent one. The principal aim of the commissioner is, according to the Bill, to,
432
"safeguard and promote the rights and welfare of children".
The commissioner will truly be a children's champion, safeguarding their rights and promoting their welfare. The Bill will extend the role of the commissioner, as set out in the Care Standards Act, by, for example, applying the power to review and monitor arrangements for complaints procedures, whistleblowing and advocacy to a wider range of bodies providing services to children in Wales; and applying the powers to examine cases of particular children and to assist in particular cases a wider range of bodies. It will also bring in a power to review the effect on children in Wales of the operation and the policies of the Assembly and public bodies in devolved areas. This is what devolution is all about: working together—Westminster and Wales—for the good of all children in Wales.
In the past, children's voices have not been listened to: we are all aware of the tragic cases of child abuse. We have debated and discussed reports in your Lordships' House. The children's commissioner will not, of course, be able to prevent all cases of abuse. But at last the children of Wales will have a much greater degree of protection, as well as the new powers in the Bill ensuring their welfare and rights. I am delighted with the measures set out in the Bill.
In conclusion, I am certain that over the years this new post of Children's Commissioner for Wales, and all its implications, will be closely watched and that it will provide a good example to others, who may wish to follow the Welsh example. Much is expected from this new post, but one thing is certain: the children of Wales will be the beneficiaries.
7.1 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, this is a health and home affairs debate in which I wish to speak only about the constitution. The speech of the noble Lord, Lord Butler, was particularly welcome. One hopes that it will warrant a considered response. Noble Lords on all sides of the House will have taken note of the recent criticism of the monarchy and disparagement of the parliamentary process, which could well engender disintegration of the constitutional structure. Dismemberment of your Lordships' House and devolution have already weakened that structure.
The purpose of this speech is to consider some of the questions arising and to suggest, as I have discussed with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, with whom I always discuss what I propose to do, that there should be a full debate on the constitution arranged through the usual channels; and, if that cannot be done, that a curtailed debate should perhaps ensue on the Motion of my noble friend Lord Dean of Harptree currently to be found listed under the "No Day Named" business in the Minutes of Proceedings.
As concerns the Monarch, the criticism in the Guardian newspaper and in the Early Day Motion, not normally debated in the other place, could be directed to undermine our evolutionary, constitutional structure under the Queen in Parliament, the

433
Parliament Acts, usage and convention. Indeed, such would be the inevitable consequence if the objective were to abolish the royal successory hereditary entitlement, dis-establish the monarchy and set up a structure for a written Republican constitution. Or is the objective to retain the monarchy, subject to the assent of the monarchy, and amend the Act of Settlement to confer successory and other entitlements in favour of Catholics; and perhaps to proscribe the traditional trappings of the royal ceremonial—the pageantry of our great occasions of state?
The people are simply entitled to know where this Government stand and in due course to read the intentions of all political parties, including my own, in substance and in some detail in the election manifestos. They need to understand how such intentions will affect the monarchy, the constitution, the Commonwealth, international relations, the economy, voluntary bodies and much else besides. If there is not to be a political turmoil of unimaginable distress and disaster, implementation of any such measures would have to be approved by a very substantial majority of the people on a referendum.
On another plane, in the Quintine Prophesy of "elective dictatorship", the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, identified a virus that would infect, debilitate and destroy the body politic. It is indeed sad and most unfortunate that the wisdom of the noble and learned Lord is not at the disposal of the House this evening to prescribe an antidote, as his prophesy has now been all but fulfilled. That is not because the bread of the hustings has become the telly-snack, but because the parliamentary process—the dignity of Parliament—has been disparaged in favour of the doctored spin, the contrived leak and overt ministerial dissension, which has pre-empted debate in Parliament on what is the business of Parliament. It is also because the Parliament Act is now routinely misused for a purpose for which it was never intended; namely, to enforce government by decree.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jay of Paddington—whose personal and political integrity is not to be called in question—considers, as Leader of the House, that this House should be treated as subservient to another place. Albeit that since 1911 this House, by convention, has acknowledged the supremacy of another place: it has never been subservient. Its independence was expressly preserved by the Parliament Acts and remains as such under the House of Lords Act, which altered the composition of this House but in no way changed the powers and functions of this place. In particular, one refers to the exercise of the function, as sole guardian of the constitution, asserted by Lord Bryce (over 80 years ago) and as accepted by Lord Home of the Hirsel in his report on the House of Lords.
The untoward constitutional precedent set by resort to the Parliament Acts on the War Crimes Bill has been misused to forge a sort of Sword of Damocles suspended over the head of this House, as a permanent
434
threat to seek to ordain subservience to the will of government: contrary to the long-established ethos of our system of bi-cameral government.
There was much ado in the White Paper and in the debate on the House of Lords Bill about "modernising Parliament". But no proposal, indeed, no attempt, has been made by government to seek to safeguard the constitution, much of which is unwritten. No such measure was envisaged in the gracious Speech.
On the benign assumption that our evolutionary constitutional process and structure shall remain such as it is, a parliamentary reform Bill, an enabling measure, was read for the first time today. That Bill subsumes amendments moved and withdrawn on the then Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill which was spoken to on Report by the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, and by my noble friend Lord Dean of Harptree and on Third Reading by my noble friend Lord Cranborne—the originator of this concept, albeit by another means, the concept being to seek to safeguard the constitution from piecemeal erosion by statute at the behest of government.
So, what should be done to safeguard the constitution from disintegration or from erosion? It can only be respectfully suggested to your Lordships that such is a question worthy of your Lordships' consideration in a full debate as soon as may be convenient. The measure of requisite clarification and assurance as I have agreed with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, cannot possibly be afforded in winding up on this debate.
7.13 p.m.
Lord Greaves: My Lords, I regret the absence in the gracious Speech of government proposals to improve the system for dealing with asylum seekers and for the support of asylum applicants. I realise that we are now in a pre-election situation and that there are not many votes in ensuring fair treatment for asylum seekers.
I do not question that this country in most cases is carrying out its basic obligations under international treaties and agreements. It is certainly carrying out the letter of them if not the spirit. How we deal with these, in many cases, desperate people who seek to escape from tyranny and threats to their lives and well-being has a great bearing on how we as a country are judged by the rest of the world. It is a test of our humanity and of our civilised values. I submit that at the moment we are failing in that respect.
During the past few months, as a result of the Government's dispersal scheme, I have got to know a lot of people who are labelled "asylum seekers". Some of them have become friends. I have got to know a shop assistant from Ethiopia and her friend from Eritrea; a college lecturer from Zimbabwe; journalists from Iran who are highly educated, intelligent and energetic people; teachers and students; and Kurds from Iraq. I do not comment on the validity of any of their applications; that will be sorted out in due course. However, having talked to these people I realise that they did not come here to seek a comfortable life. They are not, as some of the tabloid newspapers would have

435
us believe, trying to sponge off this country, holding out a begging bowl. These people have given up their former lives and have left their families, their friends and their property. They seek freedom from oppression. They have come to this country to escape repression. They certainly do not expect things to be easy when they reach this country. They know that things will be extremely difficult, as they have left behind almost everything they possessed and in many cases their families, friends and communities.
What is wrong with the system as it is currently operated? On 7th July I spoke in your Lordships' House of the way in which the dispersal arrangements are operated. I shall not repeat what I said then except simply to say that little has changed. The national providers and the local housing service providers are still in many cases simply not carrying out the contracts that they have with the National Asylum Support Service (NASS) or with the Government.
I wish to mention one or two aspects of what happens to people when they claim political asylum in this country. First, they have the problem of getting here. Some noble Lords may have seen yesterday's Dail' Mail which ran a big story on a gentleman from Iran who has tried 20 times to get across the Channel from France. He will continue to try until he succeeds. Due to the "Fortress Britain" policy which is now in place, people are finding it almost impossible to get into this country to claim asylum, as is their right, without putting themselves in situations of acute danger. Yesterday my noble friend Lady Williams of Crosby said,
"I shall say clearly and loudly that today it is almost impossible for a genuine refugee, who has suffered for his beliefs, to get to this county legally in any way".—[Official Report, 12/12/00; col. 243.]
Yet the number of people trying to get here shows no sign of diminishing, with the exception of refugees from the Balkans, where the situation has obviously substantially improved in the past year. As I say, people are still trying to get here. When they get here they are supposed to receive emergency support provided by NASS, which is supposed to last seven days before they are dispersed to their accommodation. In many cases that process is taking much longer than seven days and in some cases it is taking months. My honourable friend in another place, Simon Hughes, tabled a Question for Written Answer and received a reply from the Minister, Barbara Roche, only two days ago which states:
"Information on the proportion decided within seven or 14 days is not available".—[Official Report, Commons, 11/12/00; col. WA51.]
Therefore, no one knows what is happening. However, the people who deal with asylum seekers know that the system is not working. It appears that it is another example of the bureaucratic shambles which characterises the whole of the reception and dispersal of asylum seekers. It is time that Ministers started to take some responsibility for that and to do something about it.
Asylum seekers may eventually be given addresses to go to in other parts of the country under the dispersal scheme. Some are sent on specially chartered
436
buses. Others are simply given what I am told are called "self-write" tickets provided, I assume, by NASS. It appears that many of the people who are given tickets and consigned to the vagaries of the railway system in this country simply do not arrive at their destinations. I do not know whether they do not arrive because they have decided to go somewhere else or because of the chaos of the railway system at present. However, again, no one can tell me the proportion of people who do not reach their destinations.
At least part of the voucher system is being reconsidered as a result of a revolt that occurred last summer at the Labour Party conference. However, a tiny detail of it is being reconsidered. A much more fundamental review ought to take place, because the voucher system is a disgrace to a civilised country.
However, people have to apply for asylum. The provision of legal representation and support are at best a lottery. There is meant to be a one-stop shop system. Where I live, the nearest one-stop shop is 30 miles away in Manchester. No transport is provided. Before dispersal, some people were provided with solicitors in the south of England. No funds are provided for the necessary telephone calls, postage, faxes and so on. These are not trivial matters but issues associated with their future. In many cases, they may be life and death matters. The quality of legal support and the assistance given are dismal.
I know of people in the north of England who have to travel 250 miles to Croydon for interviews. Some in the south of England have to travel to Liverpool for interviews. There seems to be no joined-up thought in that regard. People are told that they must turn up at 11 in the morning. They are provided with no money for an overnight stay but simply tickets for travel to and from the place of interview. The whole system is designed to make the situation as difficult as possible. It is an obstacle course. That cannot be right. Whether or not a person is entitled to asylum in this country, the system should ensure that the right decision is taken rather than providing obstacles.
Many of those people need friends with them because they do not speak the language; they are in a foreign country. Many are bewildered. There is no provision for transport for friends. Volunteers from the local community where those people have settled temporarily have to provide their own transport. The local voluntary group in my area attempted to obtain funding. It received a small amount from local authorities but made effort after effort to obtain funding from different grant-making bodies. It failed, despite what I believe were excellent applications. Far from being cushy, cosy or comfortable, the system is stacked against the applicants at almost every stage. That cannot be right in a civilised society.
In conclusion, perhaps I may tell noble Lords about someone I met last week. To my surprise, I found myself on Thursday night on a bus travelling from Budapest to Sarajevo. The journey took 12 hours. The young lady next to me on the bus was returning to Sarajevo for the first time in six years. She had been a

437
refugee from the war in Bosnia and had managed to escape from Sarajevo at almost the worst time in the siege of that city. She reached an asylum centre in Amsterdam. Almost the first person she met there was a refugee from North Africa; they are now married. She settled in Holland and obtained a job in a large hotel as a chambermaid. She told me with some pride that she is now in charge of the organisation of the laundry in that hotel. Having met her, I have no doubt that in a few years' time she will either be managing the hotel or the whole laundry business. She is clearly a person with great ability and drive. She was returning to Sarajevo to see her mother and father for the first time in six years.
Some may say that once the war was over, she should have returned to Bosnia where she belongs despite the fact that there would have been no job for her. I believe that the dispersal of people of different ethnic origins, backgrounds and cultures throughout Europe enriches us. In many cases it invigorates our economy. Culturally and socially it is an enrichment. We should welcome it. This country's attitude is now far too defensive. All that we seem to bother about is keeping as many people as possible out of the country. But many of the thousands who manage to get here—as my noble friend said, there is almost certainly no legal way to do so—are fully entitled to asylum. We should welcome them and value the contributions they will make in the future, remembering the many refugees in the past who have enriched the society of this country.
7.25 p.m.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, having attended here for so many years, people often ask me, "What is great about this House?" I reply, "The humanity." I hobble about slowly these days with a stick. However, yesterday someone hobbling even more slowly was helped to his seat by an assistant. No doubt he later made a great speech. He is an eminent person having held one of the highest positions in this country. He was treated with great respect.
The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, spoke with humanity. It does him enormous credit. I hope he will not think I am patronising him when I say that he is a young and vigorous man and, as the years pass, he will realise that he is contributing to the humanity of this House, as he demonstrated by his speech today.
Mark Anthony said,
"I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him".
I have not come to bury the Government or to praise them. They are above that. They do not need me to be a somewhat obsequious supporter. However, I am not their devotee in one connection. I wish to interrogate them on the penal area—surprise, surprise! Although, in theory, there are no time limits on the debate, the patience of the House is limited. Therefore I cannot deal in a few minutes with the whole issue of penal policy or the Government's policy with regard to crime. The striking fact is that over a period of six or seven years under the former government and this
438
Government the number of police has decreased. No one knows why. The Government now have ambitious plans which we hope will succeed. I reserve judgment. I give them credit for good intentions.
The police are all-important in the prevention of crime. I want to concentrate on one essential question. Is the penal policy of the Government any different in essentials from that of the former government? After three and a half years in power is the policy of this Government any different from that of Michael Howard? Michael Howard was condemned by every humane or liberal-minded person—certainly by all the Labour people I knew. Michael Howard was supposed to be the worst Home Secretary on record. Within four years the prison population had increased by 50 per cent despite no increase in crime. Is this Government's policy any different?
One of the most astute dialecticians of the age will reply to the debate. I know how clever he will be. There are 30 speeches to reply to; he will ignore this speech. He is a very clever man. I do not expect an answer today. No answer is available that is any good and he has a lot of other business on hand.
I ask this question. Is the policy of this Government on penal matters any different from that of the former government? It would be sad if it were not. The Government always said that their policy would be totally different. What are the facts? In the age of Howard, the prison population went up by 50 per cent despite no increase in crime. This Government have kept it fairly steady, but it is going up now. Some forecasts say that it may go up a lot in the next few years; others disagree. I was given an Answer in the House on that some time ago. The Minister may be too busy to reply tonight, but I am at least entitled to ask him the question, which may come back to haunt him in his dreams: do the Government have any plans for reducing the prison population in the next few years instead of letting it increase?
I understand that there are more life prisoners in this country than in the rest of Europe put together. There are currently 4,000 more people in prison than what is regarded as the official norm. Are the Government doing anything to alter policies or are they sticking to the same old Howard policy? I shall be lucky to get an answer, but the issue will come back again and again.
When they have a moment to spare, the Government may well say that the number of people in prison does not depend on them. There was no legislation to produce the 50 per cent increase during the age of Michael Howard. There was simply an atmosphere that no one doubted was created by the Government. My subsidiary question is whether the Government accept any responsibility for the number of people in prison or whether they say that the issue is nothing to do with them and is just down to the courts.
As I draw to a close, I shall try to hold out some hope to the Government. I am not so simple as to suppose that any penal reformer would last more than five minutes as Home Secretary. My dear old friend the great writer Evelyn Waugh once said, "If I were Home Secretary, we would all be murdered in our beds". If

439
any penal reformer were in power, he would not last very long. He would resign or be sacked or something. The Home Secretary has to retain the confidence of the public. I make allowances for him just as I make allowances for prison officers, whom I admire enormously collectively, although they often make terrible mistakes. They have the hardest job in the world. I am not sure whether their job or the Home Secretary's is the harder, but they are both very hard jobs and I am full of sympathy.
At least the present Home Secretary, who is an enlightened man and a Christian socialist, has said that he wants prison to be constructive. How can it be constructive if the numbers are increasing? That is the crucial question. This is not a brilliant idea of mine. All the penal reform organisations and the House of Commons have said the same. I hesitate to quote the Chief Inspector of Prisons, whom I admire more than anyone else in his field, but anyone reading his reports will reach the same conclusion as I did: that it is impossible to call prison constructive when it is so disgracefully overcrowded.
So there it all is. Do the Government agree that they are essentially pursuing the same policy as Michael Howard? There have been one or two good things, such as tagging, and one or two bad things, but in the essentials the policy is the same. It is no good Ministers denying that, because it is the general opinion. I talk to people involved in all aspects of the penal system and everyone agrees that there is no difference between the policy of this Government and that of the previous government. Leaving aside the past three years, are they going to make a difference in the future?
7.34 p.m.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, it is always a pleasure—indeed, it is a great honour—to follow the noble Earl, whose views on penal reform are always succinct. There is no doubt in any of our minds that he is a very considerable human being.
Having listened to a substantial proportion of each day's debate on the Queen's Speech in this House, I am struck by the way in which the Government's thinking is coming off the rails. I do not mean that as a quip or a comment on the present deplorable state of our railways, but the cracked rail seems to reflect the state of the Government's thinking on a number of issues.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, opened the debate euphorically last Thursday, banishing the condition of economic bust to Never Never Land and claiming perpetual economic boom as the Government's domain. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, corrected the imbalance in her assessment with a gentility that I could never muster.
I would feel more assured of the Government's command of the economy in the global marketplace if they occasionally hinted at the faintest possibility of a recession in the not too distant future—not necessarily one of their own making, but one thrust upon them by external forces. What would then become of their long-term spending plans for the NHS and other services, as described by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, at
440
the start of today's debate? How would those spending plans, about which we have heard so much, be sustained in those circumstances? Already the planned growth in spending exceeds the country's economic growth rate. Suppose we have a recession some time in the next two or three years and our economic growth rate becomes negative—a usual concomitant of a recession? Have the Government given any thought to that possibility, or do they believe in their own spin and live in a fool's paradise, knowing that the folly of it is unlikely to be revealed before a spring election, even though some of the major harbingers of the bust phase are gathering now? That is a major fault line in the Government's thinking. There are others, but I shall not follow them this evening.
It is not easy to find new subjects on the last day of the debate on the Queen's Speech, but I shall say a little about what has become known as postcode prescribing—the situation in which certain drugs are available in certain health trust areas, but not in others. I think that the Minister agrees that that is inequitable and tends to create a two-tier health service.
The National Institute for Clinical Excellence is responsible for examining new drugs and advising authorities on their use. Unfortunately, the process takes time. As many of the new drugs are expensive, there is a suspicion that a reference to NICE is a delaying tactic that means a rationing of availability. My honourable friend Dr Liam Fox in the other place has come up with the idea of an exceptional medicines fund to reduce postcode rationing and restore clinical judgment to its proper primacy in deciding on treatment. I commend that proposal to the Government.
We have heard a great deal about the partial availability of beta interferon, which can bring relief to sufferers from multiple sclerosis, but there are other drugs and treatments, such as enbrel and remicade, used to relieve the pain of rheumatoid arthritis, that are available in the United States but are not widely used here, despite clinical judgments in their favour. I hope that the Government will look again hard at the issue, because they could relieve a great deal of suffering and improve the lives of thousands of people.
Like my noble friend on the Front Bench, Lord Howe, and the noble Baroness, Lady Gale, I also wish to draw attention to the reference in the Queen's Speech to the proposal to extend the functions of the children's commissioner for Wales, established under the Care Standards Act, which we passed in the last Session. I do so for two reasons. First, it stems from a prime recommendation in Sir Ronald Waterhouse's extensive and thorough report on child abuse in North Wales, entitled, Lost in Care.
The contents of that report shocked all who read it. As the noble Baroness said, the report stated that there should be an independent children's commissioner for Wales whose duties should include ensuring that children's rights are respected through the monitoring and oversight of the operation of complaints arid whistle-blowing procedures, examining the handling

441
of individual cases brought to the commissioner's attention, and publishing reports, including an annual report to the National Assembly for Wales.
Sir Ronald's recommendation, which mainly concerned children in care, was endorsed and amplified by the National Assembly, which sought special primary legislation to extend the commissioner's functions to cover the protection of all children in Wales. That, of course, has meant that the Care Standards Act 2000 must be amended. That is essentially what the Bill now does so far as concerns Wales. Why the benefits of the Bill, of which the Government are clearly convinced, are not extended to England is a question for the Government to answer. Personally I would appreciate the views of my noble friend Lord Kirkham, who made such an eximious speech earlier in our debate and who is clearly interested in this aspect of care.
I also focus on the Bill which relates to the commissioner because it is a landmark in the Assembly's history. It is the first time that the Assembly has applied to Parliament for primary legislation to meet a perceived Welsh need. It means that the arrangements laid down by the Government of Wales Act for the provision of special Welsh legislation are beginning to work, even though the draft protocol on the primary legislative procedure to be followed by the Government and the National Assembly has yet to be formally agreed between them.
I believe that the lack of a clear understanding and transparent collaboration to date led to arguably inappropriate provision for Wales in some of the measures that were presented to your Lordships last Session. The very fact that we now have to adapt the Care Standards Act to the needs of Wales with this new Bill is proof of that. It is hoped that that period is drawing to a close.
This is not the time to discuss the Bill in any detail. However, there are obvious caveats related to the proposals. While there is clearly a proven need to safeguard children in the care of the statutory authorities and, indeed, to safeguard their interests more generally, the position and responsibility of parents must not be undermined. Most of us would consider that parents should be encouraged and supported in their role, as my noble friend Lord Waddington suggested earlier.
I hope that we shall have an interesting discussion on the Bill when it comes before your Lordships and that the Government will assist us by providing a synopsis of the Assembly's views so that we may take proper account of them in our deliberations. I urge the Government to assist us in that because I know that I am not the only Member of your Lordships' House who finds it difficult to follow the proceedings of the Assembly on the Internet, aspiring nerd that I am as well as bard.
7.45 p.m.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I propose to interpret home affairs rather widely and, as have one or two
442
other noble Lords, to treat the subject as including constitutional issues. In that I certainly do not intend to speak about the monarchy. It seems to me that the future of the monarchy is simply not on the agenda, and I do not believe that all the huffing and puffing that we have seen in the past few days in the Guardian is likely to put it there. There is one qualification to that: the Act of Settlement discriminates against Roman Catholics and I believe that good arguments exist for saying that that should be changed. Certainly any proposal for a change of that kind is one that I am sure we on these Benches would support.
This Parliament has seen more constitutional reform than any Parliament for a very long time, certainly since the Parliament elected in December 1910. The programme for reform has been strongly supported by the Liberal Democrats. Indeed, not only have we supported it; we have actively co-operated with it through the membership of some of our leaders in the Joint Cabinet Committee. I believe we could say that the programme is one which the Liberal Democrats have initiated. These are constitutional changes for which we have been calling for many years. It is our agenda to which the Labour Party is a latecomer, although it is welcome for all that.
This is almost certainly the last time in this Parliament in which we shall debate a gracious Speech. It is time to review what has been achieved in terms of constitutional reform and to consider what remains to be done.
I start by referring briefly to two Bills enacted at the end of the last Session which have constitutional implications. The Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act has gone some way towards cleaning up the political process by requiring transparency for substantial donations and by limiting spending on election and referendum campaigns. We welcome it. The Freedom of Information Act is not the Act that we wanted, but it has been greatly improved as a result of scrutiny by Select Committees in both Houses and by further improvements secured on the passage of the Bill through Parliament. It represents a useful first step but it needs—and we hope will get—further improvement.
Only one Bill in this Session has constitutional implications—the Regulatory Reform Bill, which will involve significant shifts from regulation by Act of Parliament to regulation by order. It will need to be examined with great care. We shall have the opportunity to look at it on Second Reading tomorrow week. Therefore, I do not propose to say any more about it now.
That leaves four main issues: the Human Rights Act, electoral reform, devolution and the future of your Lordships' House. I take, first, the subject of human rights. The incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights into United Kingdom law through the Human Rights Act is up and running. It is off to a good start. No doubt many bad human rights points are being taken in the courts, but the judges are proving themselves to be adequately robust and have thrown them out. Many members of the

443
press will have been looking for decisions which they can use to pillory the Human Rights Act, but so far they have not found them.
One decision that was pilloried was the decision of the Scottish court in Stott v. Brown, which held that the obligation of the keeper of a car to disclose the name of the driver breached the convention right not to incriminate oneself. That decision was overturned by the Privy Council a couple of weeks ago. I believe that it is unfortunate that that very sensible decision of the Privy Council received little or no publicity in the media, whereas the original decision had a great deal of publicity.
Even in relation to human rights, where I believe the Government have achieved much, there is more that needs to be done. First, we need a human rights commission to inform and educate people about their rights and to help them to enforce them. Secondly, we need to ratify the 12th Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights which will provide a free-standing ban on discrimination to supplement the more limited ban on discrimination which is at present contained in Article 14.
I turn to electoral reform. What has been achieved is not something contained in a single Bill but in several Bills which have produced several different systems. We have the additional member system for the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the Greater London Assembly. We have STV in Northern Ireland. We have the closed list system for European Union elections. We have the supplementary vote system for the Mayor of London. Those are steps in the right direction and I believe that they have justified themselves.
Many people have criticised the closed list system, in particular for EU elections. We should prefer an open list. But first-past-the-post is, frankly, the worst kind of closed list system because the electors are voting for a closed list of one.
We want to see proportional representation introduced as soon as possible for all local government elections. That is essential to avoid the corrupt and complacent single party government which is found in all too many local authorities. That is perhaps relatively uncontroversial because many local authorities have already multi-member wards. But it is an important step forward.
The final and crucial step would be to have a referendum for proportional representation at Westminster. The constitutional implications of that are, of course, enormous. Even if a very limited system were proposed, as by the Jenkins Committee, an absolute majority of one party in the other place would be relatively rare and coalition government would become the norm, rather than the exception. We believe that to be a desirable result, but that is something for the people of this country to choose in a referendum.
The next issue is devolution. I have no intention of discussing Northern Ireland, which is a subject for a different debate in which I am not qualified to take part. I am not in a position to say whether devolution
444
for Scotland and Wales works to the satisfaction of the people of those nations. I am concerned with its effect on England, and that means the West Lothian question, on which Professor Hazell of the Constitution Unit gave an extremely interesting lecture on Monday.
There is no simple or clear-cut answer to the West Lothian question. I start with a couple of propositions which are clearly not the answer. The first is a separate English Parliament. That would be the high road and, I believe, a very quick road to the break-up of the Union. An English Parliament would very soon be seen as becoming more important than the Parliament of the United Kingdom. It would control most of the present Whitehall spending departments. Conflicts would undoubtedly develop between the UK and English Parliaments and if, as is likely, the English Parliament became seen as the dominant body, I believe that Scotland would opt very rapidly for independence.
Secondly, I believe that the solution is not to have a formal exclusion of Scottish MPs from voting on issues relating only to England and Wales. That could cause chaos. If an opposition had a majority in England and Wales, they could hijack government Bills and turn them into something very different. In other words, the opposition would set up a government of their own in relation to England.
Our view is that no formal solution is to be found which is workable and we need to develop a constitutional convention. A government whose majority is dependent on Scottish votes should not legislate for England and Wales in a way which is unacceptable to a majority of the Members of Parliament from those nations. But the government should be able to use the votes of Scottish MPs to stop unwelcome legislation being forced upon them by the opposition.
That means that the legislative programme for England and Wales would have to be negotiated between the government and the opposition on the probably relatively few occasions when the majority was dependent on Scottish votes. I admit that that is an untidy solution but it is workable.
Finally, I turn to the question of the reform of your Lordships' House. Stage One has been completed. In that, we on these Benches backed the Government. That meant that the House of Lords Act had the legitimacy of having been backed by parties which together represented a clear majority of the voters at the last election. The reforms of the House of Lords Act have given your Lordships' House greater legitimacy and authority and I think that it has shown that during the present Session.
During the debates on the House of Lords Bill, many Members of this House doubted that we should ever reach stage two. It now seems that we face a different danger. To judge from the messages coming from the Government, there will indeed be a stage two. The Government will include stage two plans in some detail in their manifesto and if they win re-election—and I must say that few people would bet against that

445
at present—they will then force those plans through, relying on the Salisbury Convention to do so. There will then be no opportunity for meaningful consultation.
It is also likely that the government plan will minimise the elected membership of your Lordships' House, restricting it to one of the smaller options proposed in the Wakeham Commission report. If that is true, I believe that in your Lordships' House we face real problems. I was by no means encouraged by the statements in the last Session that the proposed Joint Committee of both Houses would be restricted to discussing the implementation of a second House of Lords Act and could not discuss its composition or powers.
Ninety years ago, the preamble to the Parliament Act 1911 referred to an upper House being constituted on a popular and not an hereditary basis. Frankly, I find it astonishing that the Government are now apparently contemplating an upper House with only a small minority of elected Members. The composition of your Lordships' House is of fundamental constitutional importance.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, can the noble Lord think of any conceivable reason for introducing elected Members? It will make a nonsense of the whole place.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I believe that the introduction of a primarily elected membership is essential if this House is in future to have the power to do what it needs to do as one of the two Houses of Parliament.
As I said, there must be consultation. To say that there must be full consensus is going too far because that is potentially a recipe for paralysis. But if the Government attempt to ram through their proposals for stage two with no meaningful consultation, they will not receive support from these Benches. I have no doubt that a similar view is taken by many of those on the Conservative Benches too. Unless the Government win a majority of the votes cast at the next election—and that is very unlikely—they will be forcing through a fundamental reform of the constitution without the support of a majority of the electorate. That will raise constitutional issues which I believe are very serious indeed.
The constitutional agenda which was started at the beginning of this Parliament is not yet complete. On some issues like human rights, we are most of the way there but not quite at the end of the process. On some, like freedom of information and electoral reform, there is still a long way to go. But on the reform of your Lordships' House, we may well face very serious problems early in the next Parliament.
7.59 p.m.
Lord Wilberforce: My Lords, a week ago when considering on what subject to address your Lordships it occurred to me to speak, as I have often before, on
446
the subject of law reform. The advantage is that it is a brief subject and can be dealt with concisely. However, this morning I found that, by a mysterious process, I had been drawn next to the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, in the list of speakers. As he has spoken so eloquently on the subject before, I thought that my speech would be quite unnecessary and that I should be able to withdraw. But he went off into much wider and greater constitutional points, so I feel that I must adhere to my original idea of saying a few words on the narrow subject of law reform and on the necessity of keeping in use our splendid Law Commission, with its distinguished membership and chairman, that carries out work that ought not to be lost.
This year's gracious Speech did not, as some do, make any general reference to law reform. Often at the end there is a phrase saying, "Other measures of law reform will be laid before you". Nothing of the kind was contained in the present gracious Speech. There are simply brief references to regulatory activity, so I feel that a general reference is not out of order.
I am aware, as are your Lordships, that we have in front of us a short Session. Therefore, this is no occasion to bore your Lordships with a specific list of topics that may be examined. However, there is a counterbalance to the proposition that this will be a short Session; it is bound to be followed by a longer Session, whether that takes place in a new Parliament or in the existing one. There is bound to be a longer Session preceded as to its substance, as is invariably the case, by an initial period during which specific measures are not ready to be laid. Therefore, it is opportune and necessary that we should be prepared for that Session and that whichever government it is should have measures of law reform ready to be placed before Parliament, ready to be discussed and if necessary passed. The preparatory work cannot begin too soon and may well be carried out now.
I want to put down markers as to two specific matters that may be the subject of attention. The first is the subject of regulatory activity which was mentioned in the gracious Speech in relation to education. It is clear that the need for simplification and reduction in the amount of legislation has never been so great as it is now. Moreover, there is a great need, although one would not expect to find a reference to it in the gracious Speech, to greater consolidation of our existing laws, for which the machinery exists and which does not seem to have been used much in the course of the past year. I hope that is only a blip and not a trend.
The general matter of simplification is of enormous importance. It has been brought out in relation to specific subjects, particularly, for example, in the case of education, where it is clear that the mass of regulation, directives and legislation stifles the work of head teachers, ordinary teachers and professors to an extent that tends to paralyse great parts of the activities of the education service.
It is also specifically relevant to taxation and accountancy which have been referred to recently. A report of the Institute of Chartered Accountants to

447
which attention was drawn by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, who I am sorry to see is not in her place, made clear that there is room for immediate and extensive measures of simplification.
The need is not limited to such technical and specific areas. There is a general need, in the interests and in the working of our legal system, for whoever has to work it. Do not forget that 90 per cent of the work is carried out by lay justices and they find it increasingly difficult to keep up with the mass of legislation. Many find it necessary to retire, to take early retirement or not to involve themselves in the work that is so essential. Therefore there is a trend—I cannot give statistics—towards a greater use of stipendiary workers, who are good enough in themselves, but they are no substitute for our judicial system and, incidentally, they are more expensive.
In the interdepartmental committee, set up under Mr David Lock, there is considerable hope. It may produce some good results, but I urge the Government, even in the six months of this Session, to press on with the work of simplification and reduction of legislative material.
The other marker is that of codification. To my surprise we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Brockwell, that codification is everywhere. I was astonished and excited by that and I felt that we must be using the word "codification" in a different sense. At any rate, in the area with which I am mainly concerned at the moment, it seems to be progressing slowly. I refer to the area of the criminal law to which codification is and remains extremely urgent.
Codification has been advocated for over 100 years. It has never been objected to on any rational ground and recently it was reaffirmed by my noble and learned friend Lord Bingham of Cornhill, by the Home Secretary and by Dame Mary Arden in a distinguished lecture that she gave about a year ago.
There has never been any dispute that codification is needed. The Government, pleading lack of time, have segregated the big subject of criminal law generally into specific blocks and have carried out work on the blocks separately; for example, on the Offences against the Person Act. That has been effective and a good way of proceeding.
Surely the time has now come when it is necessary to reassemble the blocks to make an edifice or at least, if that is too ambitious, to legislate separately in relation to such blocks as are ready? One example is the Offences against the Person Act on which the Law Commission reported in 1993. That was the subject of a consultation paper by the Home Office, and the Home Secretary has expressed his willingness to legislate. There was an encouraging Written Answer on the subject in December 1999.
I hope that those two matters will be borne in mind, even at this late stage, in the present parliamentary situation, together with the great and important constitutional issues that have been raised by the noble Lords, Lord Campbell of Alloway and Lord Goodhart. I express myself entirely in agreement with what they said. I suggest that there is a great need, in
448
the modest view to which I have referred, for work to be done and there are great opportunities to make valuable and practical progress.
8.9 p.m.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, this is only my second Queen's Speech debate. Like last year I find myself bewildered by the range of subjects that noble Lords have covered during the course of today's discussions and on the three previous days. I have found absolutely riveting the topics that have been covered in just the last few minutes by the noble Lords, Lord Campbell of Alloway and Lord Goodhart, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce.
I hope that they will forgive me if I do not go down the road of the constitutional reform issues that they have covered. I want to deal with just one: the issue of protecting and promoting the health of young people and the proposal in the gracious Speech to ban the advertising and promotion of tobacco products.
This is a measure which has already attracted some comment—not in the course of today's debate—most of which has been favourable, and I say at the outset that I warmly welcome the Government's intentions. However, there has been some opposition, though not from the Conservative Front Bench either in this House or the other place. I was interested that the noble Earl, Lord Howe, used almost identical words to those of the Shadow Secretary of State in the other place when he said that he had an open mind on this issue. I am pleased about that because I hope that the proposals will command widespread support when the Bill reaches us some time in the new year.
The opposition has been best articulated in recent days by a strange editorial in the Independent on Sunday last weekend. It said:
"On tobacco advertising Labour pretends that there is a public health argument. There is not. There is no evidence that advertising encourages young people to smoke who otherwise would not: it is all a matter of persuading existing smokers that one brand is preferable to another".
For a normally sensible newspaper that is nonsense. I commend the writer and other Members of your Lordships' House who are interested in the subject to look at some of the documents which were unearthed by the Health Select Committee in the other place as part of its investigation into the conduct of the UK tobacco industry. These were the internal working papers of the tobacco industry's five advertising agencies and amounted to no less than 16 large boxes of documents.
Those documents were analysed by the Centre for Tobacco Control Research at the University of Strathclyde and the report is available in our Library. It is entitled, Keep Smiling No One's Going to Die. Those words were taken from a gung ho signing off in a letter from the Benson and Hedges advertising agency to their client at Gallahers.
There is much remarkable material here and some of it is deeply shocking. In particular, the documents refute totally the suggestion made by apologists for the industry that advertising and sponsorship are

449
concerned only with attracting and maintaining brand loyalty. The advertising agencies make abundantly clear that their campaigns are intended to encourage people to start and continue smoking, especially young people. They aim to enhance the social acceptability of smoking per se; to increase per capita consumption; to recruit new smokers and to discourage existing ones from giving up.
Given that this is a product which kills 120,000 of its consumers a year in the United Kingdom, it is perhaps understandable that so much of the tobacco industry's sponsorship and advertising industry is aimed at young people and at encouraging them to start smoking. It is an industry that obviously needs to replace the older customers it kills with new young ones. That is why the agencies regard the youth market as vital to commercial success and do so much to research their lifestyles and aspirations. The report says,
"Again and again, the conclusion is drawn that young people smoke for emotional reasons and that branding can meet these needs by adding aspiration, coolness and 'street cred' to the product".
That is of course totally contrary to the Advertising Standards Authority's code which says that cigarette ads should not suggest that smoking is associated with social success or play on the susceptibilities of those who are physically or emotionally vulnerable. There is more, much more in those papers in a similar vein. They also reveal the tobacco companies' motivation for sports sponsorship. In that regard the agencies see sponsorship and advertising as performing the same role of promoting the brand images which appeal to young smokers. They are used together in the same campaigns and are researched and judged in exactly the same way. The only difference is that sponsorship allows more covert and subliminal messages to be delivered than straightforward advertising. That is why it is so important that the Government's Bill should cover both advertising and sponsorship.
Your Lordships will recall that the reason it is necessary to have this Bill is that the tobacco manufacturers went to the European Court and successfully challenged the EU directive of 1998 to phase out all tobacco advertising and sponsorship by 2006. I gather that we may see the Bill tomorrow or early next week. Given that the Department of Health estimates that it will eventually lead to a 2.5 per cent reduction in the number of smokers and save 3,000 lives a year—that is almost as many people as are killed on our roads each year—why is it necessary to wait so long for the prohibition to take effect? It is not as though the industry had no warning. It had plenty of warning as it was in the Labour Party's 1997 election manifesto in clear and unambiguous terms.
The governing body of Formula One motor racing—a notorious receiver of tobacco sponsorship—for whom the deadline on eliminating tobacco sponsorship was originally extended to 2006, announced two years ago that it could phase out tobacco money by 2002. I ask my noble and learned
450
friend therefore, when he comes to consider these matters in due course, why that cannot be the year in which the ban takes effect.
I have two other concerns about the Bill which I hope will prove to be groundless when we receive the details. The first is the range of exemptions which the Bill may propose. Exemptions that cover small circulation foreign publications, tobacco trade journals and possibly the interior of specialist tobacco retailers are acceptable. But advertising of tobacco at point of sale in general retailers, which sell a range of other goods such as confectionery and are visited by children and young people, should not be allowed.
My second concern is that the Government must not allow themselves to be outwitted by the tobacco manufacturers and their lobbyists and allow tobacco generally and cigarettes in particular to be promoted by so-called "brand stretching". That is a technique of building brand awareness through non-tobacco goods such as Camel boots and Marlboro classic clothing. Advertisements for those goods look identical to those for the cigarettes and their purpose again is to appeal to the young and make them aware of cigarette brands. The EU proposals which are being replaced by the Bill were seriously defective in that regard and it is important that the Bill stops-up that loophole.
The Government's Bill is neither authoritarian nor anti-libertarian, and it certainly does not persecute smokers. It is dealing with a unique and special product because it is the only one which kills a large proportion of its consumers when used exactly as intended by the manufacturer. So this is a debate about public health and saving lives and I hope that the Bill will come into law as rapidly as possible.
8.17 p.m.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the Queen's Speech is the one moment in the parliamentary calendar when Back-Benchers have a genuine feeling of anticipation about the measures that will be laid before Parliament during that Session. However, the Home Office section of the Government's programme was laid out in full detail in The Times on 27th November. Perhaps I can begin therefore by asking the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General, when he winds up the debate, whether he feels that Ministers are obeying the convention that they should not disclose the contents of the Queen's Speech in advance. I should emphasise that that convention was restated by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, in answer to a recent parliamentary Question. I can say that that is the only point on which I ask for a response this evening.
Again we see that this Session is dominated by Bills from the Home Office. We must hope—I trust not forlornly—that they will be of a better quality than those which originated during the last Session. The drafting of the Bills which came from the Home Office during the last Session left a great deal to be desired. They were sent back for considerable amendment, much of which was at the Government's suggestion—I think of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill

451
as being a good example. It was considerably rewritten and we even saw the Minister putting his name to amendments tabled by my noble friend on the Front Bench, Lord Cope of Berkeley. That was a truly bizarre scenario which I hope will not be repeated during this Session.
Indeed, we almost saw Ministers distancing themselves from the quality of the legislation that carne from their own departments and commenting on it as though they were independent observers rather than the owners of the specific provisions. That is not helpful either. Part of the difficulty must be the volume of legislation emanating from that one department of state.
That volume is further swelled by Bills brought forward in response to specific events. During the previous Session, we passed the Football (Offences and Disorder) Act. During this Session we shall debate the hunting Bill. I shall not comment on it at length, but say merely that it will undoubtedly consume considerable quantities of parliamentary time and create a great deal of heat. Let the Government never again say that they are short of legislative time because, if that is how they want to use it, it will be their own fault if they find their programme under pressure.
Furthermore, Ministers appear to rely ever more heavily on the assumption that crime can be regulated out of existence. I was interested to hear the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, say that the aim was not to reduce crime by diktat from Whitehall and then detail the diktats which are coming from Whitehall in order to reduce crime. There is a great deal of legislation on the statute book covering almost every conceivable offence and situation. I suggest that the emphasis should be put on enforcing that rather than dreaming up more and more eye-catching gimmicks to join it.
I do not say that we should set our legislation in stone; circumstances change and we must create a legislative framework which takes that into account. However, I echo the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, in calling for a period of greater stability. There must come a point when all the agencies involved in law enforcement and the courts have difficulty in digesting the many changes to the law. That must reduce the effectiveness of the law.
The police force is at the forefront of enforcement. I want to pay tribute to the work which it does, which is often dangerous and unpopular with those on whom it is imposed. That is why we must give the police force the political support it requires, particularly in times of difficulty for it. For example the Metropolitan Police Force was under the spotlight as a result of the Macpherson report. Unless the police force receives the political support it deserves the task it faces will be made doubly difficult.
Turning to a separate issue, we are told that we are in the run-up to a general election. During the Government's time in office we have seen their tendency to use public funds to buy editorial, or "advertorial", space in various publications. Indeed, we have seen various government departments sponsoring publications which I contend are designed
452
to show the Government's policy in a favourable light and not to be independent. The Government's ludicrously one-sided annual report springs to mind. During the Government's tenure, we have seen articles about their good housekeeping in a variety of publications. Some of them are supposed to be vaguely independent, but a quick perusal soon shows the opposite to be true. I hope that we are not to have Government departments producing thinly disguised mini-manifestos in the run-up to a general election. That would be a grave mistake and a considerable abuse.
I want to conclude with the constitution. We heard a number of powerful and learned speeches, notably from my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway and the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. We saw the reform of this House on a partial basis. We were vigorously told that the changes which were then made were urgent; they had to be done immediately and on a nonconsensual basis. They were forced through the House. However, since then we have seen nothing but sloth; the Government have not properly spelt out their policies on reforming this House. We need clarity on that before the general election.
Perhaps the most damning indictment of the Government's attitude towards Parliament came as we headed towards Prorogation. Your Lordships' House took strong views on certain measures in the Transport Bill and the Disqualifications Bill, to name but two. When strong opinions were expressed by this House and Bills were sent back to another place we heard Ministers rushing to speak on the radio to brand that as being constitutionally outrageous. We heard a lot of talk of unelected Peers behaving totally reprehensibly.
This House has been fashioned and modelled as the Government wished; it is their own creation. Therefore any deficiencies in the perceived legitimacy of this House must be laid firmly at the Government's door. The degree of haste with which the Government have shown they want to proceed with constitutional reform beyond that of your Lordships' House is heavy-handed and regrettable. I echo the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, that when reforming the constitution there must be a genuine attempt to create consensus. We do not want to get to a stage when every five or 10 years there is a change of government and the constitution is rewritten to suit the party in power. I understand that having spent so long out of office, when the Labour Party came into office there was a great tendency to rush to get all the toys out of the box and play with them all at once. That is a short-sighted approach towards constitutional reform. They must seek the agreement and support of other parties to produce a long-lasting and robust constitution which will serve this country well.
8.27 p.m.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, being the 26th speaker in such a debate is slightly less daunting than being the 27th but it gives one the opportunity to look

453
at large at the subjects. I believe that nothing would be damaged, and something might be served, by separating the debates into health and home affairs.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: As many people seem to agree I shall say no more. I hope that what I say will be of some interest, coming from a vantage point of 30 years of preoccupation with public awareness and knowledge of the law and the extent to which the general public relate to the law. I want to examine two issues. The first is the volume and complexity of lawmaking, which was touched on by the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, and the second is the issue of community in relation to the law and law enforcement. I would have loved to have heard the Queen's Speech open with the words, "My Government, having enacted over 15 major anti-crime Bills since they came to power—more than in any similar period in parliamentary history—propose to devote all their resources to effective implementation of those Acts and to refrain from any further such legislation during this Session". Obviously, that is a Utopian hope but it is a real one. We all become so fully engaged with our particular concerns, and governments become so keen to deliver their manifestos, that the totality of what is done is lost to view.
My remarks are informed by the fact that the Citizenship Foundation, of which I am president, works with over half the state primary and secondary schools on an intensive basis. I am convinced that we are legislating in such volume and complexity that to a dangerous degree it is self-defeating. It is demoralising for those who have to deal with it, particularly the police whose chief officers often make positive noises about legislation because, I suspect, they believe that that is how they should react when a government say that they intend to do something.
The police on the ground and the courts have a very difficult life when dealing with major slices of legislation. Many justices of the peace, well referred to by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, are at their wits' end trying to contend with new law. If anybody believes that we should, therefore, install stipendiary magistrates, he should contemplate the civic and cultural consequences of ripping out of the heart of the present system lay justices who have been the backbone of justice in this country. This process is also disorienting for local authorities which are often drawn into legislation, for example the Harassment Act and so on, and other groups that are affected by it.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, referred to teachers and headmasters. I refer to the difficulties of my profession in seeking to deal with the regulatory overburden of the Community Legal Service Scheme. It is demoralising, expensive and counter-productive, distances the public from the law, Parliament and democracy and damages its acceptance by the public who have no familiarity with the background to the legislation. They have not been asked whether they believe it to be good or bad and they have no ownership of it.
454
There are also great costs involved in the legislation which divert scarce revenue from enforcement. For example, in relation to the Human Rights Act we were told that there could not be a human rights commission because of expense. It is essential to the effectiveness of that crucially important piece of legislation that there is a commission to enable the public to get alongside it so that rights can be delivered to people rather than here or to lawyers. The costs of legal services have rocketed. It is easy to forget the immense extra cost, both private and public, of having to deal more and more through lawyers. To be fair to lawyers, they must grapple with legislation that is impenetrable, difficult and often ambiguous. Finally, the legislation is often futile. It does not achieve its stated purpose because it is so complicated that nobody gets round to enforcing it. Earlier reference was made to curfew orders. There is a very low take-up of anti-social behaviour orders. Banning orders under the dreaded and notorious Football (Offences and Disorder) Act have been few and far between. Although I am glad about that, that was not the Government's object.
This torrent of legislation is not just counterproductive but dangerous. In particular, criminal laws which have no public ownership can act rather like antibiotics which too often are pumped into the body politic so that they lose their self-healing efficacy and lay it open to general infection. I suggest to the Government—it may not be possible for the Attorney—General to deal with it tonight—that they give serious consideration to the introduction of an automatic impact assessment of legislation so that two or three years down the track a piece of legislation that affects the public can be investigated to see how far it has achieved its stated purpose. We are creating a land fit only for lawyers, and I speak as one.
I should like to address what I believe to be a primary source of criminality and anti-social behaviour: the breakdown of community life. There are many people in our society, a large proportion of whom are young people, who regard themselves as outsiders, almost outcasts. The body politic is only as strong as its weakest link. I have in mind individuals, families, groups and communities. If any one of those parts of a single body politic fails the whole system breaks down. I believe that we face a greater crisis in regard to criminal behaviour and democratic weakness, almost failure, than we are often prepared to acknowledge.
Earlier my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford—I am aware that he is unable to be here—referred to his father's pugilism on the streets of Wrexham. My noble friend said that it happened then, happens now and will always happen. But there is one big difference between Wrexham in, say, the 1920s and Wrexham in 2000. My father was born in the Welsh mining town of Abertillery where Saturday nights were riven by fights and drunkenness on a stupendous scale. My grandfather had the equivalent of a hearse in his baker's yard to which the police would strap comatose

455
and fighting bodies and wheel them to the police station. That is not new; it has always been like that and always will be.
But there are huge differences between then and now. First, on the whole in those days men, not kids, did that. Secondly, if they had been kids, by Jiminy cricket they would have been disciplined by their families and communities. Thirdly and most important of all, those communities were vigorous, vibrant, proud, autonomous and self-dealing. It is not an accident that the Baptist chapels which would have been attended by half those men each week had 1,500 children at Sunday school. They had their own community leaders and a sense of civic duty which was keenly felt by the best among them. They also had their own institutions and courts and were largely self-governing. So many of those things have gone.
More and more the Local Government Act 1970 will be seen as one of the most disastrous pieces of legislation in the history of this country. Today, towns like Abertillery and Sudbury, from which I come, have been stripped of their powers and have lost their pride, autonomy and local leaders. The quality of life in towns is no longer self-regulated and yet the Government continue to strip institutions and powers from them. It is a bit of a cheek that the Government should refer in the Queen's Speech to the continuing process of decentralisation. The process is not one of decentralisation, except in the great reforms in relation to Scotland, Wales and human rights, for which I take my hat off to the Government. After all, it was only at the end of the previous Session that we dealt with the centralisation of the probation service. That was a major change which removed semi-autonomous local probation committees and replaced them with local boards which are now the pawns of a central service. All of that is done in the name of national consistency. As I said then, consistency can be second or third rate.
I believe that if the Auld report suggests that justices of the peace have had their day we should genteelly take to the barricades, because the police will not be far behind. There are already indications that the Government want a consistent national service for the police. What a wonderful thing that will be, except that it will be another nail in the coffin of community life. Without vibrant, autonomous, organic, self-regulating communities we can forget about improvements to law and order, reductions in criminality and democratic vitality.
Communities must be allowed to learn from their mistakes. This is an unforgiving age, and both central and local government suffer from it. However, local communities are no different from individuals. Unless we are allowed to learn for ourselves we shall get nowhere. Broadly, I pay tribute to, and identify with, the observations on this theme by the noble Lord, Lord Kirkham.
I acknowledge the excellent effort by the Government with their policy action teams. The 10th report contains the single most important finding of all 18 PAT groups; namely, that self-help is the key to everything. The essential phrase used is "doing and not
456
being done by". Unless we are allowed to engage in self-help on the ground in our localities everything else will not work. Helplessness and insignificance, already such a common feature of young people's sense of their own civic identity, will grow instead of, as is desperately needed, decline. In raising those two issues I hope that I have added to the debate.
Finally, I pay tribute to the Government for putting citizenship in the school curriculum. There are difficulties about timing and teachers not being sufficiently prepared and having insufficient resources. But, far from some sub-Orwellian danger to the education process, I know from the work of the Citizenship Foundation—indeed, we had a launch this morning of material with Jack Straw and David Blunkett—that there is some real strategic hope that citizenship education can be made a way of empowering young people so that they take themselves seriously and have a sense of their own moral autonomy. Therefore, far from slavish adherence to the government of the day, they will actually stand up and say, "I do not agree and the reason I do not agree is one, two and three". All of that is important too.
8.41 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Chesterton: My Lords, first I offer my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Kirkham, on his excellent maiden speech.
We heard in the gracious Speech that in this Session your Lordships' House will be working on another programme of reforming and modernising legislation. I should like to follow other noble Lords in making some suggestions to this House and to the Government about making this programme as effective as possible and about the implementation of previous legislation, especially that on freedom of information. There have been calls in this Chamber for more clarity from government departments. Members of the Opposition and Cross-Benchers have called) for less legislation. That is a cry that will become more popular unless the preparation of Bills before reaching Parliament is considerably improved. I believe that is a feasible objective if we draw some lessons from the worlds of modern business and technology about quality assurance, methods and validation. I hope the House will be interested in the views of a non-lawyer.
I am honoured to have been appointed to this House, and, furthermore, in its recently reformed state. However, I am conscious that the House is not and will not be taken as seriously as it should be unless it continues with its further evolution to a more democratically acceptable form. I echo the wise remarks of the noble Earl, Lord Russell. Therefore, I welcome the statement by the Leader of the House about the further work in this direction, which I hope will have the full support of the House.
I have been impressed by the effective work of this House on the Bills it has revised. But this work could be considerably improved, and, dare I say it, speeded up. Legislation is complex, but so are developing large computer programs and business systems. Both tasks have clear sets of objectives and both are based on

457
constructing a connected set of logical and empirically based statements and instructions. Legislation influences individuals and societies through exhortatory stick and carrot techniques and organisations, while computer programs determine that computers and business systems perform certain functions. Before accepting a computer program, a manager or a client insists that it has been through a rigorous check that its internal logical structure ensures that the program functions so as to achieve the agreed objectives of the system. That is quality assurance. There is often also a procedure of validation to ensure that each of the logical steps and the conclusions have a well-established empirical basis, through experiments, surveys or practical experience.
Currently the only quality assurance step in the legislation presented to this House is that it satisfies the European human rights regulations. When the recent Transport Bill was presented to this House, although it was intended as a strategic Bill to ensure both co-ordination of transport, environment and safety, the word "environment" was not mentioned anywhere in it. One civil servant jovially remarked to me, "So you noticed". The revising of Bills should not be an elaborate parlour game to spot the obvious omissions. An elementary application of quality assurance would have saved hours of debate in this House, although in the end a very satisfactory Act was produced. I hope my noble and learned friend the Attorney-General will consider seriously how such principles might be applied by Ministers guiding the legislation and by the parliamentary draftsmen and civil servants drafting Bills. For the proposed Bills for this Session we should have a detailed quality assurance statement before we begin our legislative discussion. The explanatory documents issued with Bills could well move in that direction.
In addition, those teams should be applying the methods of validation—a suggestion that fits with the recommendation of the committee of the noble Lord, Lord Norton, about the examination of Bills after Second Reading. For example, on the proposed Bill on court trials heard by juries I hope that there will be clearer empirical evidence than we have so far heard. Also I hope that in the Front Bench and Back-Bench arguments in the debates on the Bill, the professions of those providing evidence will not be so dismissively impugned as they were in the previous debate, which I was sorry to see descended much below the level this House should expect.
Part of the problem is secrecy. We had to rely in part on evidence provided by my noble friend Lord Borrie from New Zealand. There, as in other Commonwealth countries and the Irish Republic, openness has begun to reach into all parts of government in the way it has done for much longer in the United States of America. Although the American Government are certainly not perfect, especially regarding the dissemination of relevant information from foreign countries, that should be the next stage of freedom of information.
458
An urgent task for the Government and for this House in its legislation and in its questioning of government will be to ensure that the Freedom of Information Act ensures that government information becomes much readily available. A new culture of openness must be developed in the 50,000 organisations affected by the Act; for example, as pointed out by the Evening Standard last week in its account of the cover-up of a Concorde incident.
The circular to be issued by the Home Office will be very important, and, as with other Bills, so will follow-up actions based on the statements by Ministers during the passage of the Bill. I particularly welcomed the statements by my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer on the release of scientific data. Already there is much more openness in government departments and agencies; for example, the Environment Agency data on flood areas and the Food Standards Agency data are now widely disseminated on the Internet. Those examples show that more freedom of information will save lives and property as well as helping people arrange their lives and the economy generally.
It is essential that Ministers and the Information Commissioner campaign and explain the new approach to open information. A transformation of the traditional British secretiveness is an integral part of Britain becoming a more harmonious and effective modern society, which I believe is the overarching goal of the legislation before us.
8.47 p.m.
Lord Colwyn: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Chesterton, will forgive me if I take us back into the health agenda.
I should like to take this opportunity once again to commend the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, for his involvement in dentistry and the dental strategy that has now been in place for four months. It is his face that is in all the dental press and it is his reputation that is at stake. If it is successful there will be significant changes to the way dentists work. Regrettably, I was unable to be present to hear the opening speeches, so I made a nuisance of myself earlier in the offices of the Official Report and read the Minister's speech. It was wide-ranging and informative but made no reference to the dental profession or dental strategy.
The strategy offers opportunities for both dentists and their patients. Implementation of the proposed measures will certainly lead to improvements in terms of access to NHS dentistry for patients in many areas. However, the Prime Minister's pledge that by April 200I—that could be about six weeks before an election—anyone who wants an NHS dentist will be able to find one will be achievable only if health authorities use their powers effectively. Unless the Government can address the funding crisis, dentists will continue to leave the NHS for the private sector.
Under-funding, which has been a problem for many years, has resulted in a shortage of NHS dentists. They are finding it increasingly hard to provide acceptable

459
quality of care under the present fee structure and still maintain a viable practice. I am sure that the Minister will correct me if I am wrong, but of the £100 million announced for dentistry over the next two years, —40 million had already been promised and the remaining £60 million comes from savings to the general dental services. In order to solve the access problem, at least £100 million needs to be invested in NHS dentistry every year for the next five years, not just for the next two. I shall be interested to hear how much of that funding will be spent in this financial year and what will happen to any money that is unused. Will it revert to the Treasury or roll over for the following year?
Of course I welcome the allocation of £4 million for the Dental Care Development Fund, which will help about 250,000 patients to find a dentist. As the money is allocated directly to health authorities, they will have a greater input in the way money is spent and will be in a better position to use it to enable local dentists to treat more NHS patients. A recent poll from the Doctor/Patient partnership in the summer showed that 67 per cent of people said that they would be more likely to go to a dentist if they knew that they could definitely receive NHS treatment and 89 per cent said they had not experienced problems accessing NHS dental service appointments. Clearly, public confusion about the availability and accessibility of NHS dental services is commonplace. I hope that the Minister can confirm that this promised access campaign will not put pressure on the services provided for those patients who traditionally seek care from the community dental services within NHS trusts, including those patients with special needs.
The Government have also announced commitment payments to try to encourage dentists to return to the NHS. I fear that this is unlikely to encourage much change. To benefit from the loyalty payments, dentists will have to satisfy strict criteria—being aged over 35 and having worked for at least five out of the previous 10 years in the NHS. The 1,000 or so dentists who will qualify are likely to be already established in full-time NHS practice and would probably not be seeking to move into the private sector anyway. Dentists under the age of 35, who spend much of their time working in the NHS, will, with few exceptions, receive nothing.
Perhaps I may touch briefly on fluoridation. I am well aware that the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, will have given an opposite view to mine. The recent York Review has confirmed that fluoridation is safe and effective in reducing levels of tooth decay and is essential in the fight to reduce inequalities in dental health. The Government have announced that they will be,
"encouraging health authorities with particular dental health problems to consider fluoridating their water as part of their overall health strategy".
In recent years more than 50 health authorities with particular dental health problems have persistently attempted to implement water fluoridation. They have conducted extensive publicity and consultation exercises and have demonstrated substantial public and local authority support. Despite that, each health authority has had its request for fluoridation refused
460
by its water supplier. Can the Minister confirm the Government's White Paper commitment to introduce a legal obligation on water companies to fluoridate where there is strong local support for doing so and give the dental profession an absolute assurance that this policy will be implemented?
The General Dental Council has made some serious decisions on modernisation of healthcare to encompass the ever increasing expectations of the public, profession and government. Reform of its constitution has been on the menu for several years, but it has not been realistic until the Health Act 1999 which makes changes possible by an Order in Council made under Section 60. The council has decided to cut its numbers to create a smaller unit which is more strategic in outlook but supported by a number of committee panels and working parties. There is an urgent need to make changes to the council's fitness to practise arrangements. There is a concern that existing procedures regarding complaints about private treatment do not meet patient needs sufficiently and there is need for a change in the law to allow direct regulation of the dental bodies corporate, as happens with the opticians and pharmacies. I know that the Minister will support these changes, but can he confirm that the Government will find time for this essential legislation very early in the new year?
There is general concern about the dental bodies corporate. Some dentists see them as a threat to their practices and others look at them as just an alternative way for patients to access services. With major players such as Boots involved arid other practices being set up all over the South East, could the Minister not consider freeing up the restrictive practice, which prevents other practitioners working together to set up similar environments? At a time when the Government are encouraging small businesses arid are trying to persuade dentists to improve facilities and equipment and see more NHS patients, it is utterly ridiculous that, unless it is possible to obtain one of the bodies corporate, which were set up before 1956 and are limited to 27, dentists themselves, or other groups who wish to set up a company to practise dentistry, are restricted from working together to do this. These bodies corporate change hands for hundreds of thousands of pounds and are snapped up as soon as they become available. Perhaps the noble arid learned Lord, Lord Williams, could indicate whether this is not contrary to European restrictive practice law and also let me know whether he is aware of any current test cases against this legislation.
To return to health in general, I do regret the continual reference to funding. I am guilty in that I have done just that. But it is the fundamental issues that must be addressed. The assumption that greater availability of medical services, more doctors and health-related personnel, the construction of more hospitals and clinics and the development of a wider range of drugs and surgical techniques will lead to improvements in health, to increased longevity or to the eradication of disease is ill founded. Perhaps I may

461
repeat a quotation from a speech made by the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, when she represented the Department of Health in this House. She said:
"But good health is about more than the NHS. It is about how we live. It is about the kind of country we are. It is about what priorities we give to things like proper childcare, to worthwhile employment for school leavers—and, indeed, for everyone of working age—to decent housing, to the environment and to building cohesive communities".—[Official Report, 12/2/97; col. 246.]
With our present attitudes to health, it is inconceivable to think that illness should be viewed as a helpful, though often severe, reminder that perhaps there is something at fault with one's lifestyle or attitude. It is precisely because this possibility has been ignored that so little attention is being paid to the whole concept of health promotion. Health promotion is about the maintenance of good physical and mental health. It has very little to do with medicine and disease management and everything to do with the ways people live and the social and psychological environments in which they do it. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said earlier that prevention is better than cure for disease. I agree with him.
That brings me to the recent report on complementary medicine by the Science and Technology Sub-Committee, on which I had the great honour to serve during the past 14 months. I also declare my interest as president of the all-party group on alternative and complementary medicine. I have just mentioned lifestyle. It is lifestyle and the maintenance of an effective immune system that are the essence of most complementary medicine. I remember discussing the relationship between nutrition and health and the harmful effect of free radicals in this House 20 years ago, when my noble friend Lady Trumpington was a junior health Minister. I was listened to with the usual tolerance of this House and then labelled an eccentric. The report, which I hope will be debated soon in the new year, makes a plea for funding for research into complementary therapies—not only the widely accepted therapies such as osteopathy, chiropractic, acupuncture, herbal medicine andhomeopathy but the fringe therapies which even some members of the committee described as "bunkum" but which do have sound anecdotal evidence as to their efficacy and are widely used.
I hope that the Minister will prepare himself and his department for the plea for adequate funding for complementary therapies and for research, for there is no doubt that a system of medicine which integrates the complementary therapies is the essential model for healthcare in the future.
8.58 p.m.
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe: My Lords, in rising to welcome the Government's commitment in the gracious Speech to the implementation of the NHS Plan, I should like to deal briefly, as I am very conscious of the time, with one of the chief obstacles to progress; namely, the shortage of trained staff and ways in which that might be addressed. In doing so, I
462
must declare an interest as chief executive of Universities UK, which until recently was known as the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals, since I want to talk about the way in which higher education is crucial to the delivery of the modernisation process in the health service.
Universities provide virtually all pre-registration education, and significant post-registration education, for doctors, dentists, nurses, midwives and the other professions allied to medicine. The NHS Plan sets out ambitious targets for additional student numbers. Their recruitment is certainly a challenge. Joint planning and joint working between the Department of Health and the Department for Education will be essential if the Government are to respond to the challenge. I know that my noble friend the Minister is acutely aware of that and I have every hope that the challenge can be met.
I say that because successful recruitment campaigns for nurses, often in partnership with local trusts, have led to an 18.5 per cent increase in recruitment to degree nursing programmes across the UK this year. Plans for further increases in student numbers in coming years are already in place. They rely on continuing the close working arrangements between education and the health service, in particular the adequate supply of high quality clinical placements. This will be one of the key points of focus for co-operation between higher education institutions and the NHS.
Another is moving forward the establishment of the two new medical centres announced earlier this year. They will start to teach their students in 2002. Additional student places in existing medical schools have resulted in 839 more medical students this year. A further round of bidding is now under way for another 1,000 medical student places. The results of that process will be announced in May 2001.
All of this is good news, but there is a significant gap which must be filled. An important aim for both the NHS and the universities is to reflect the broadest sections of the community in their recruitment to all the health professions. So the widening participation agenda must be linked to the health agenda.
Perhaps I may give one example aimed at opening up such opportunities. I refer to a local initiative called the Access to Medicine programme, centred on King's College in south London. It is designed to attract up to 50 students from a broader range of social and ethnic backgrounds to better reflect the local population. I have used this example because widening participation means actively seeking to draw on the talent of all groups in society. It means targeting and working with local networks of schools and community groups to reach new audiences who may not have even begun to consider either higher education or a professional qualification in a health related subject.
That is why innovative approaches and flexible delivery are crucial aspects of this work, if we are to attract new groups to these education programmes. So I congratulate the Government on expanding much more widely projects such as "Positively Diverse" which originated at Bradford Community Health

463
Trust. The trust led an innovative partnership with Bradford University, local schools, career services and the TEC. One of the benefits has been the recruitment of Asian students into both nurse education and the work force, more accurately to reflect the ethnic diversity of the communities served. Through the development of such innovative programmes, the Government have certainly shown their determination to improve recruitment.
Finally, I hesitate to ask my noble and learned friend the Attorney-General to respond to a specific question. He has the formidable task of responding to four intensive days of debate in 20 minutes. However, I should be glad if he could say something in his reply about any obstacles the Government see in attracting these new students. know, for example, that the Department of Health has set up a review of student funding arrangements. I hope that he will confirm that this will help to inform strategies for attracting more of these students in the future.
9.4 p.m.
Lord Moran: My Lords, I am grateful to the Government Whips for agreeing to let me speak late in this debate. This morning I had to drive up through the floods of Wales which have brought misery to so many unfortunate people and I was not sure when I would be able to arrive. However, we did manage to get through, so I fear that I shall be able to add one more speech to those to which the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General has listened with such notable patience.
At the heart of home affairs, which we are debating today, must be the state of our democracy. I think that we need to take a new look at the way we are governed. Do we, or do we not, have government by consent and genuine consultation with the electors? Last month I was in the United States. My visit coincided with the beginning of this extraordinary presidential election, which the Americans I met took calmly, perhaps because none of them seemed to have any great enthusiasm for either of the candidates. Commentators have described the five week long proceedings in the American courts as a kind of Barnum and Bailey show, but I wonder whether noble Lords have been struck by the contrast between the agonising in America about what the majority of Florida voters really said and what went on in Nice, where the structure of the European Union was discussed by leaders who had not consulted their voters. They merely told them afterwards what had been decided. Which seems to noble Lords to be the more democratic arrangement?
In America I was also impressed by two other things. First, in a number of states, voters were asked for their views about certain local issues, with the arguments set out briefly but fairly. The questions were put by voters, not by the authorities. Voters were thus able to propose part of the political agenda. Here, by contrast, it is the Government who determine the agenda, as in the Queen's Speech. In Massachusetts, where we were staying, the voters were asked nine questions, such as whether state income tax should be
464
reduced, with consequences for public expenditure, and whether greyhound racing should be abolished. I do not remember voters in our country being asked for their views on such matters.
Secondly, it was pointed out to me that the parties in Congress were so evenly balanced that whoever eventually reached the White House 'would not be able to do much. I felt envious of a situation where political parties were more or less gridlocked and consequently hamstrung. How lucky are the Americans; how much less fortunate are we.
Reflecting on this, I wondered just how effective is our own system in consulting the wishes of the voters and seeking to meet those of their views that are sensible and reasonable. Apart from this House and the unelected European Commissioners, who run so many of our affairs nowadays, our ruling bodies—the House of Commons, the Scottish Parliament., the National Assembly for Wales, county councils, parish and community councils—are all elected. But, once they are elected, they nearly all seem to feel free to do as they like and to be under no obligation to maintain touch with their electorates and ask them what they think.
Of course, many initiatives, both national and local, go through a consultation process, but too often this is no more than window dressing. Genuine consultation means more than just asking questions; it implies that something might be done differently as a result of the answers received—that the consultation will be taken seriously. Some time ago we were in Switzerland, where there was a proposal to build a new road. People in the area were being asked, "Do you want a new road? If you do, how do you think it should be paid for?". Nothing like that happens here.
We hear a great deal in this House about manifesto commitments enshrined in the Salisbury convention and repeatedly quoted by the Government as evidence of the will of the people. I wonder how valid those claims are. Most people that I know vote either against the party they dislike the most or for the general drift of one of the parties. Few of them read party manifestos. If, for example, they vote for a party because of its line on the NHS, they may not realise that they are then held to have expressed their will on everything else in the manifesto.
With us, what has been rightly described as an elective dictatorship means that the ruling party, especially if it has a substantial majority. can do anything it wants without any form of genuine consultation with the people. Sadly, our governments seem only too happy to proceed on this basis. The present government have just used the Parliament Act to ram through an Act legalising the buggery of girls of 16 against the wishes of this House, of the leaders of every faith and of distinguished medical opinion, and almost certainly against the general view of the public. Happily, no less an authority than my noble and learned friend Lord Donaldson of Lymington has suggested that the new Act is flawed and may be set aside by judicial review.

465
Europe is one area in which the Government do not normally consult either Parliament or the people. The Charter of Fundamental Rights was proclaimed at Nice and agreed earlier by leaders at Biarritz without this Parliament being given an opportunity to consider or approve it. We watched the usual hell's kitchen at Nice. I was puzzled to see a summit that was supposed to be about enlargement ignoring altogether the main problem—the common agricultural policy—which, in an expanded Union, must be impossibly costly unless it is drastically reformed.
We have learnt, too, that, without any consultation with Parliament or the voters, the Government have surrendered our veto in 34 areas, some of which may have serious implications for the future. This Government, in what they say publicly about Europe, are as disingenuous as the previous government, pretending in what they say publicly that there is no move towards a European state, when they know perfectly well that that is the ambition of the Commission and of most continental governments; and that after Nice the march to fuller integration will continue as before.
Even if they themselves are not averse to the emergence of a federal Europe, they know that they must move cautiously as the public clearly do not wish to see the end of an independent Britain. They are, moreover, stuck with the offer of a referendum on abolishing the pound, the one solitary instance of a decision to consult the people. They are clearly reluctant to hold one for the time being as they fear, with good reason, that they would lose it. Mr Mandelson blithely asserts that progress towards "ever closer union", enshrined as it is in the treaties, has now ended—just as Mr Hurd, as he then was, told us seven years ago that Maastricht offered us the chance to arrest the centralising, harmonising tendency.
This steady refusal to tell the people of this country what is happening and what we are doing—still less to consult them—has been going on ever since Mr Heath took us into the Community. The Government should be honest and candid with our people and ask them whether they would not prefer a better relationship with Europe, which I believe can be achieved only if we replace our full membership of the European Union—in which, manifestly, we do not really feel at home and many aspects of which, such as the common agricultural and fishery policies, do us serious damage—by a looser, more sensible relationship allowing for full trading links such as those achieved by Norway and, surprisingly, Mexico.
The Government's decision to commit a third of our Armed Forces to a European force without any consultation with Parliament or the public is only the latest and most alarming of their efforts to show us as good Europeans. It is a major step. Can your Lordships imagine the United States committing, say, the Sixth Fleet to NAFTA control? But our Government, without asking us, have done something
466
very similar to this. They have embraced a French initiative which is bound to weaken American support for NATO, our sure shield for nearly 60 years.
Mr Caspar Weinberger and Mr Cohen have warned us. Despite this, the new arrangements appear to make no provision for unified planning between the new force and NATO, for which the Americans very reasonably asked. I find Mr Cook's reassurances unconvincing. A new administration in Washington—if it does not conclude that the new force is so poorly thought out that it cannot be taken seriously—may eventually decide that NATO is indeed a relic of the past and go its own way. That would be a very serious matter for us.
The Conservatives now rightly denounce the effort to set up this fledgling European army, but it stems from the common security policies established by the Maastricht Treaty, which they signed. So they must share the responsibility for what has happened.
In the countryside, it is significant that one of the main cries from increasingly desperate people is, "Listen to us". This is just what the Government do not do. They simply do not understand the problems of farmers who, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, told us last month, face a reduction in income of 27 per cent—a third—in one year from 1999 to 2000, and who are bombarded weekly with fresh instructions from Brussels.
The petrol price protests, supported by a sympathetic public, showed how exasperated many people were in the countryside, where a car is a necessity—more than ever now, given the lamentable state of the railways—and are fed up with paying the highest prices in the developed world, most of it taken by the Government. But there is no sign that the Government will really listen to or talk to country people and determine how to put things right for them.
In Northern Ireland, which is still—just—a part of the United Kingdom, drastic changes have been and are being made by the Government, like the endless unreciprocated concessions to Sinn Fein/IRA and the emasculation of the RUC, without the real consent of the majority. There was indeed a referendum on the Belfast agreement, but it was on the basis of promises which were not kept and expectations, especially on the disarming of terrorist organisations, which were not met. People in England have not been asked whether they are content that English and Welsh murderers should serve their sentences, while large numbers of Irish murderers are set free. Does that not do serious damage to the rule of law, under which I had supposed that we were all equal? I wonder whether it would have been possible to do it if the late Lord Denning had still been with us.
I have been critical of the Government, but I am a Cross-Bencher who has nothing to gain from attacking them. What I have said applies just as much to the Conservatives. It was they who pushed through the Maastricht Treaty in 1993, brushing aside those of us who opposed it so strongly in this House. On 14th July that year they bused in their troops to achieve a vote of 445 to defeat the proposal of the noble Lord,

467
Lord Blake, for a referendum, the issue being government by consent. That vote showed how little the Conservatives at that time valued the views of the British people. Happily, the Conservative Party now seems to realise the mistake it made seven years ago and to have accepted that the people must in future be properly consulted on our relationship with Europe.
Whatever government we have really do need to ask people what they want, and to govern with a much lighter hand. Our governments tend to treat us like illiterate peasants. But the peasants have learnt to read. The letters are now often the most interesting read in the newspapers. Our governments should wake up to that. They should try to get away from their bullying, domineering methods. What is the point of prosecuting a man for selling vegetables in pounds and ounces?
Charles I, with whom Mr Blair seems sometimes to have something in common, said on the scaffold that the people's liberty and freedom was,
"not for having a share in government: that is nothing pertaining to them".
Believing that, as he did, he lost his head. There is a lesson there for all our political leaders, especially those who maintain that there is no need to seek the wholehearted consent of the British people for what they seek to do.
9.16 p.m.
Lord McNally: My Lords, it is my honour to close the debate on the gracious Speech from these Benches. As ever, it has been a reminder of the extraordinary breadth of experience available to us in this House in addressing all aspects of government policy. It has also offered an example of persistence: we have heard how the noble Lord, Lord Moran, struggled through the floods and how my noble friend Lady Linklater was turned off two planes which were cancelled before she finally found a third in order to be with us today. We have heard four excellent maiden speeches during the course of the four days: by the noble Lords, Lord Mitchell, Lord Morgan and Lord Ashcroft, and today by the noble Lord, Lord Kirkham.
This year, the Queen's Speech has been a little on the short side. Nevertheless, it has been dominated, as it was last year, by Bills emanating from the Home Office and the Law Officers. On brevity, of course, the Government cannot win. A long Speech like last year's and they are accused of legislative overload; a short speech and the pundits harbour unworthy thoughts that the decks are being cleared for a general election.
One point that has been made, both in this House and by distinguished authorities outside, is that the cascade of Home Office and Law Officer Bills in recent years is not good for the criminal justice system. We need time for new laws and new practices to bed down, rather than believing that one more tweak will make matters right. The point was made today by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark, by my noble friends Lord Thomas of Gresford and Lord Phillips of Sudbury and by the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen. Less Home Office legislation might also
468
mean less legislating on the hoof, with Bills being subject to hundreds of government amendrnents—not, as Minister's try to claim, because this is a listening government but because the Bills are poor or loosely drafted in the first place. I suggest that Ministers study the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt; it would be to the benefit of the legislative process.
Perhaps, too, if we had fewer headline-grabbing "quick fix" laws and examined some of the 'wider causes of crime and possible responses to them, we might have more success in cutting the overall crime rate. The point has been made today by my noble friend Lord Phillips of Sudbury and in the past by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Dartingt on, that the direct linkage between the concept of successful communities and civic responsibility and low crime levels merits greater attention, rather than relying on short, sharp shocks, boot camps, curfews, instant fines, rapid retribution and all the instant remedies beloved of the tabloid editors but which are almost invariably useless in practice.
There has been a whiff of the hustings about a number of speeches over the past five days. Even a sober chap like the noble Lord, Lord Higgins. was thumping the Dispatch Box and proclaiming his confidence in a Conservative victory at the poll. Hope springs eternal.
On the government side, many of the concerns on policy have centred on the stewardship of the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr John Prescott. In opening the debate on the gracious Speech from these Benches, the Leader of the Liberal Democrats, my noble friend Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, put forward the suggestion that the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, should become a Cabinet Minister responsible for a separate transport department. I endorse that suggestion, although I must tell the noble Lord from bitter experience that, "Crisis, what is not a rallying cry for political success.
However, I would go further. Not only would I give transport to the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, I would also give the environment, with a Cabinet seat and a separate department, to Mr Michael Meacher because he understands those issues. I would also give the regions, with a Cabinet seat, to Mr Peter Hain because he has the energy and the imagination to make a reality of the next stage of devolution and because we on these Benches believe in giving even an apostate Liberal a leg up.
But what is to be done with the Deputy Prime Minister? My solution is simple: he should be made Lord President of the Council, Lord Privy Seal and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. That would have a double benefit. In none of those offices would he have any real power but the appointment would entitle him to four ministerial cars.
Important as the issues of transport, the environment and the regions are, and as important as is the issue of health—with which my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones dealt with his usual thoroughness earlier today—at the heart of this gracious Speech are the Bills emanating from the Home Office and the law

469
departments, which are usually covered by the generic title "Law and Order". As the noble Lord, Lord Warner, noted with some pride, it is a success of sorts for the present Home Secretary that "law and order" is no longer seen as the safe home banker for the Conservative Party. But such security from attacks from the Right come at a price for New Labour. Perhaps I may quote from two newspapers usually considered to be in the Labour camp.
In the New Statesman of 1 1 th December, Jackie Ashley wrote the following:
"There are traditionally Liberal Labour supporters, and I include many Ministers here, who are deeply uneasy with some of the government's authoritarianism… Some of the 'bash the yob' measures in the Queen's Speech, which went down well with the right-wing press, have left a section of the Labour Party wondering if this is really what their Government should be doing".
The Observer summed up the gracious Speech thus:
"Banal, headline-grabbing policies are no joke when hiding plans to curtail basic principles of justice".
Certainly if the noble Earl, Lord Longford, were to put post-war Home Secretaries into two columns—the progressives and the reactionaries—I do not believe that he would have very much difficulty in deciding whether to put Jack Straw in the same column as Roy Jenkins and Robert Carr or in the one containing Michael Howard and Henry Brooke.
Let us look, for example, at the Criminal Justice and Police Bill—the so-called "flagship Bill" of the gracious Speech—with its proposal to extend child curfews. We shall look at these proposals, but if this is just an extension of existing powers introduced by Labour for local curfews for under 10 year-olds, which have never been used, we believe that this smacks of gimmickry.
We have civil liberties objections if these continue to be blanket curfews affecting all children and young people in specific areas. But we also have practical concerns, not least those relating to whether the police resources are available to enforce such curfews. The Police Federation has already warned about the implications for resources and stated that such measures could be counter- productive, take up too much time and deliver relatively small benefits.
Likewise with fixed penalty notices, although we understand the desire to tackle the "yob culture", we can foresee problems with the idea of fixed penalty notices for yobbish behaviour. Whereas fixed penalties for driving offences relate to clear-cut crimes, these notices may affect behaviour that is less clear cut and more open to challenge. We are pleased that the Prime Minister backtracked on his proposal to march yobs to cashpoints—something that the noble Lord, Lord Mackenzie, rightly described as "nonsense"—but we are still not persuaded that the current proposal is a much better idea.
As a number of my noble friends have made clear, the Liberal Democrats are simply not prepared to join the Home Secretary and Miss Ann Widdecombe in their ludicrous mud-wrestling as to who is tougher on
470
crime. Simon Hughes, the Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman, has made my party's position clear; namely, that,
"Liberal Democrats will only support well thought through ideas that have widespread support and a real chance of success. Crime and misbehaviour by young people has no simple causes and no easy solutions".
I hope that no one will accuse Simon Hughes of lacking either experience or, indeed, courage in these matters.
A number of organisations have come up with ideas for non-penal, anti-crime initiatives. My noble friend Lord Dholakia spelled out a number of those earlier. As my noble friend Lord Phillips said, we need policies in education which help rebuild and sustain communities and civic values.
We need to look at our police services in a thorough and constructive way. The Government are averse to a Royal Commission on the police, called for by the Police Federation. Our alternative would be a standing commission available to examine and listen to both grievances and suggestions for improvement.
Other areas need sober examination such as the poor morale and low priority given to remedial work in the Prison Service and the deplorable state of our young offender institutions. Was there ever a more damning indictment of a system than that the killers of James Bulger could not be transferred to the next facility in their age range because it would do them more harm than good? If that is true in their case, what is it doing to children and young people who are actually sent to those institutions?
What, too, does our system of childcare indicate when so many children who have been in children's homes and other state care end up within a very short time as young offenders? The bleak statistics quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Kirkham, in an outstanding maiden speech on what the future holds for the children in our care are shaming to us all. I recommend that Home Office Ministers read his speech in conjunction with that of the noble Baroness, Lady Linklater. Between them they offer a genuine third way to that offered by Jack Straw or Ann Widdecombe.
No one is saying that we do not need police or prisons. So let us stop pretending that one group of politicians are tough on crime and have all the answers and those who doubt the validity of those answers are soft on crime or criminals.
I am glad that the Government no longer accept the idea that we can combat crime with fewer policemen on the beat. Whatever technologies may be employed—the noble Lord, Lord Warner, referred to a number of them—the citizen wants to see the bobby on the beat. That may not tie in with all modern police theory or, indeed, police budgets, but it is wanted by Mr and Mrs Joe Public. As the noble Lord, Lord Harris, recognised, the party that does not respond to that wish will get short shrift on the doorstep.
We need to consider whether other bodies can take some of the more mundane police tasks away from the main forces to free up manpower to fight crime. My

471
party has put forward ideas for a neighbourhood warden scheme and community safety constabularies, both using people and organisations at present outside the ambit of normal police work.
There are aspects of the criminal justice and police Bill which we shall support, as well as of the Vehicle (Crime) Bill and the proceeds of crime Bill. We support notification of release dates to victims of crime. We also support the regulation of the private security industry.
I turn to a Bill where the Government can assume our total opposition. The Government have reintroduced the Criminal Justice (Mode of Trial) Bill. I do not know whether it was that Bill that the noble Baroness the Leader of the House had in mind when she told us in her best Cruella de Ville voice of the unimagined horrors she would inflict on this House if we showed defiance to her will. Apparently, "Jay's law" states that if we use the powers that the democratically elected House of Commons gave us just over a year ago, that is both an insult to the democratically elected House and a constitutional outrage.
Let me expound McNally's law; namely, that this House should use the powers given it with prudence and responsibility. But those powers are there to be used also with courage and principle. The Government have no mandate for the Criminal Justice (Mode of Trial) Bill. We on these Benches will use all our powers to delay and defeat it. If that means that a general election intervenes before the Bill becomes law, then let the Labour Party spell out its plans to restrict trial by jury in its election manifesto and we shall put our determination to resist it in ours.
On asylum, my noble friends Lord Dholakia and Lord Greaves set out clearly our position. I shall not dwell too long on the Freedom of Information Act. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, dealt well with the issue in his intervention. I regret that the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Brockwell, did not take the opportunity of his intervention to throw his considerable weight behind the call to make the Freedom of Information Act work.
I do not wish to detain the House longer. Ahead of us are two real treats. First, we shall have the noble Lord, Lord Cope, trying to make a silk purse out of the sow's ear which was sent him by Miss Widdecombe from along the corridor. Perhaps I can help him by drawing his attention to the advice given to his party by Mr Michael Gove in The Times yesterday. He wrote:
"The Blair Government is everywhere replacing due process and inherited freedoms with administrative caprice and authoritarian bluster. But the growth of arbitrary government cannot be fought by an arbitrary Opposition. The Tories cannot pick and choose which of our historic liberties to defend".
Quite so.
We then come to what the noble Earl, Lord Longford. identified as the crème de la crème—the Attorney-General himself. I remember once going to see the late Lord Elwyn-Jones with a particularly difficult problem. After studying it he said, "I don't
472
think a Carmarthen jury could save you now". But of course the Government have their one man Carmarthen jury. How often in the past Session have we seen bewildered Labour Members staggering confused into the government Lobby saying, "I didn't understand a word Gareth said, but he said it so beautifully".
So let us all prepare for the feast to come, knowing full well that everyone in the House will enjoy his speech—everyone except the Lord Chancellor arid the Leader of the House, neither of whom is sure which of their jobs he wants next.
I still have hopes for this Government. Their weaknesses are evident in the gracious Speech. Too often the Government seem to be waiting to hear what the focus groups tell them rather than acting in the national interest. The Home Office in particular seems all too ready to bend the knee to the supposed prejudices of Middle England. Too often, on too many issues, in the memorable phrase of the noble, Lord, Lord Lamont, Ministers appear to be in office but not in power.
The Liberal Democrats will approach this gracious Speech as we have done all its predecessors in this Parliament. Where the Government are being radical and reforming they will have our support. Where they promote greater fairness and wider opportunity in our society they will have our backing. But when, as they all too often do, they retreat on issues of individual freedom and civil liberties we will oppose them. And if this is indeed a deck-clearing gracious Speech then these are the messages and the issues which we shall take to the country.
9.34 p.m.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, it is nice to know from the noble Lord, Lord McNally, what the Labour Members say when they are in the Lobbies with the Liberal Democrats, as they so often are.
It has been a long and wide-ranging debate since the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton. first moved the Motion a week ago, seconded so well by the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton. Today the debate has been improved by the moving maiden speech of my noble friend Lord Kirkham about children in care. He has been a friend of mine for some years and I was delighted that he showed your Lordships today that he has much to offer us. He is a true entrepreneur and businessman, but also a hands-on philanthropist. By his business success, he has made a real difference to many people's lives, first by creating stable jobs in his native Yorkshire and much further afield, and later through his charitable activities. He has already made a bigger real difference than most politicians can ever hope to do. His wisdom and experience will enrich the House. I look forward to hearing from him again.
Over the earlier days of the debate, we have also enjoyed the maiden speeches of the noble Lord. Lord Mitchell, the noble Lord, Lord Morgan, and my noble friend Lord Ashcroft, each of whom has shown that they have valuable contributions to make in the future.

473
At this time of night I shall not risk such good will as I have with your Lordships by attempting to comment on the whole of our debates over the four days, or even to deal comprehensively with today's varied contributions. I shall confine myself mainly to commenting on the Home Office aspects of the gracious Speech. I was interested in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Brockwell, who asked the Attorney-General about a possible Civil Service Bill. I look forward to the answer to that. Like my noble friend Lord Waddington and others, he also spoke about House of Lords reform.
There are five Home Office Bills in the programme and one draft Bill. That is not as many as last year, so, like my noble friend Lord Goschen, I hope that they might be better drafted. We ended up with 13 Home Office Bills last year. They were notable for their poor drafting. That was not the fault of the draftsman so much as the fault of the Home Office in giving its instructions and in trying to do too much. That was a great problem. The Home Office did not start with 13 Bills in the Queen's Speech last year; a few more were added during the year. Five may not be the final total for this year either.
Law and order is one of the stated themes of the gracious Speech. Everybody realises that it remains a major problem in our society and the theme will feature in the next few months. At least two Bills will set up new regulations and authorities. Before coming to power, the Prime Minister described new Labour's priorities as, "education, education, education". In practice, they often seem to be regulation, regulation, regulation. The proposed Bill to reduce regulations is supposed to work against that tendency, but with the increases in regulation caused by the other Bills, I fear that we shall again go backwards this year.
Generally, each regulation is attractive in itself, but the totality of the burdens on industry, society or the law creates the difficulty. I agree with the more general point that the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, and others have made about legislation and the criminal justice system.
The Private Security Industry Bill has considerable attractions. We understand the desire to regulate in that area. It is due for Second Reading on Monday, so I shall make only a few general comments tonight. The first is that the new regulatory body for doormen at clubs and similar establishments is not to be called Ofbounce. I was rather hoping that it would be. More seriously, we hope that the Bill will be effective. We shall look carefully at the detail to ensure that it does not over-regulate. We do not want everyday organisations caught in the net because they sometimes need to exclude people from their functions. The Bill is clearly aimed at night clubs and we do not want to catch too many other people.
We shall need to examine the role and powers of the new authority and also those of local authorities, which appear to be covered by the measure and which are already concerned about the possible extra cost to them. We shall also want to consider the extent to
474
which an employer will be able to rely on a licence when he takes on an employee. If a security officer is hired by a firm but he later turns out to be "bent", can the employer who took him on sue the authority if it had not done its job properly in granting the licence? In looking at the Bill, that does not appear to be the case but it is something we shall pursue.
We shall also want to know when all the measures are to come into effect. We shall want to be reassured that the authority which is to be set up will have the capability properly to examine the necessary number of people and to give them licences. I am told that 140,000 people work in the main security industry, guarding cash-in-transit and so on. There are probably 100,000 more if we include the other people who will require licences following the introduction of this legislation. Approximately a quarter of a million people will have to be vetted and issued with licences before the legislation can start to operate unless people have to close down their operations on account of it. There is an extremely high turnover of personnel in this industry. Therefore, the authorities will have to continue to vet a large number of people.
The Vehicles (Crime) Bill will follow. Once again, it will place duties on local authorities to supervise car breakers. Attempts are also being made to avoid the appointment of a government body called "Ofbreak" to supervise car breakers! The Government have resisted that temptation. Generally speaking, over the years technology has made it more difficult to steal cars. In the course of the debate, the noble Lord, Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate, provided a good example of that at what one might call the "top end" of the market—his son, as a matter of fact! The difficulty is that, again, this Bill imposes further burdens on legitimate businesses and makes them register once more with local authorities. It will also impose further workloads on the police.
However, the biggest—so-called "flagship"—Bill is the criminal justice and police Bill, which will follow later. As is usual with this type of legislation, it is a portmanteau Bill. It has a rather miscellaneous collection of measures within it. Among other things, it will take further the series of initiatives in the field of youth crime, many of which were conveniently listed by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. Central to this work is the noble Lord, Lord Warner, and the Youth Justice Board and youth offender teams. I believe that much of the work carried out by the board and the teams and by the noble Lord is valuable, as is much of the thought that goes into it.
Frankly, I would find it easier to be more supportive if the noble Lord, Lord Warner, did not always make such political speeches. He spoke today as though the rise in crime began in the 1980s when obviously it began much earlier than that. Indeed, the level of crime began to decrease several years before we left office. He was also less than polite about noble Lords from all parts of the House who spoke about the mode of trial Bill. That is a matter of principle on which we take the same view as was stated just now.

475
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark urged patience on us all rather than quick results and ever more legislation. As he and other noble Lords have said, youth curfews, which apparently are to be extended in this Bill, have yet to be tried. They seem to me to be a crude measure of doubtful effect.
I am not so opposed to the idea of fixed penalty notices although there are practical as well as other problems to solve if they are to be made to work in an acceptable way. The point behind them is to reduce the time spent on paperwork following an arrest by a policeman, which has been referred to several times, while still imposing a penalty. The noble Lord, Lord Mackenzie, referred to that too. That is the point of them. If they achieve that, then they will obviously be valuable.
Coming back to us is what is possibly now the favourite Bill of the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General—the criminal justice (mode of trial) Bill. He originally described it as madness but now he supports it with all the enthusiasm of a convert. I remind your Lordships at this point that one of the principal effects, and certainly the principal financial effect, flows from the fact that 5,000 criminals, or something of that order, are expected to receive shorter sentences because they will be dealt with by the magistrates' court rather than the Crown Court.
To put it politely, it is difficult to understand how the Bill stands in relation to the report of Lord Justice Auld which is due this month. He was asked to write that report with some urgency. I believe that he was given some 12 months or so in which to write it and he will report by the end of this year. But, of course, by bringing back this Bill, which covers some of the ground covered in that report, the Government are now either prejudging what he is going to say and what they think about it or they are indicating that they are going to kick the report straight into the long grass and leave it there for years and meanwhile carry on. They would have been much better advised to wait for the Auld report. study it and then see whether it was possible to move forward on it. One cannot help thinking that the Bill is brought back out of spite because the Government simply cannot accept the idea of being defeated in this House on any of their proposals.
Then there is the Hunting Bill, also from the Home Office. For us, as for the Government, there will be free votes throughout the passage of the Bill. Neither my noble friend the Chief Whip nor I from this Dispatch Box shall guide our colleagues on the matter. But I have a question for the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General about procedure. Will this House be presented by the Government with the same three options as presented to another place and, if so, how? What will be the effect if the two Houses reach different conclusions on the matter?
Speaking personally, I shall again vote for hunting to continue, as I have throughout my time in Parliament. A ban would knock the stuffing out of the lives of many people I know and like. Those people are not so much the rich and well-dressed, who attract so
476
much hatred. They will continue to hunt in Ireland, France and the United States. I am more concerned about those like the local people in Berkeley, in my old constituency where we lived for many years. There, for centuries, hunting has been built into and has grown into the countryside with its fox coverts and its rides.
For some, hunting is their employment. For more, it is a major part of their way of life. Some follow on horseback, some on foot, some in cars. They walk puppies; they go to open days; they cheer the hounds at the agricultural show. That would all be destroyed by a ban; and all to no real purpose. A ban is not in the interests of foxes. There is no more humane method of controlling the fox population. As I said, there will be a free vote but I am clear about what I think and shall do.
Last on the Home Office list is the proceeds of crime Bill. It is only a draft for which we, as legislators, can be thankful. Perhaps it will be a better Bill when it eventually comes.
Other promised Bills have not materialised. There is no proposal to amend the Asylum and Immigration Act, although, as the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, said, the new system is a shambles. It is not deterring would-be applicants and it is not looking after asylum seekers properly.
The provisions in each new Bill proposed will, frankly, be no good unless the police are able to enforce them. So far, under this Government, two things have happened each year. First, police numbers have dropped and, secondly, the Home Secretary has promised that they will go up next year but, of course, they do not. In the mean time, violent crime increases and the Home Secretary releases more offenders from gaol early under the curfew scheme who then offend again.
However, the programme outlined in total in the gracious Speech amounts to a thin and feeble offering for a government with a large majority. I believe that they are running out of ideas. The programme sends a clear signal that has been much read in the media, that we are to have six months of politicking and spin and then the arrogant Government will try their luck at the polls.
I return at last to the Motion moved by the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, which thanks Her Majesty in the usual form. However, its familiar words should not weaken our thanks to Her Majesty which are genuine, particularly at this time. We are grateful to her for coming to Parliament, among much ceremony, to remind us of what it is to be British, of the ideals and lessons learned from our forefathers and of our responsibility for the future. I support the Motion.
9.51 p.m.
The Attorney-General (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, when Miss Widdecombe said at the Conservative Party conference that everyone who was caught in possession of cannabis would have to be severely dealt with, with condign punishment, a large number of her colleagues said that they had consumed

477
cannabis. I am told by those who have tried it that it induces an air of unreality. I shall not say anything more to the noble Lord, Lord Cope, about cannabis this evening, but if he is seriously suggesting that the Government are afraid of an election or have run out of ideas, he is not living in a world that most of us can readily recognise.
We have had a long debate. Over the past four days I looked forward to this moment with a calm equanimity until I was distressed to hear that savage attack by the noble Lord, Lord McNally, on the Carmarthen jury, that repository of civilised jurisprudence since time immemorial. When majority verdicts were introduced the jury was firmly directed by an English speaking judge that he could accept from them only a verdict on which they were all agreed. When the jury returned to court, he asked the foreman whether they had agreed on a verdict, to which the answer—perfect I thought—was, "Yes, seven:five".
It is not long since most of our hereditary colleagues left us. Listening to the debates and reading and rereading them I believe that the House has changed in a way that is quite difficult to describe, but the change is there. Certainly the quality and diversity of speeches is as high as ever. Those factors are by no means diminished.
The House has been partly reformed but not entirely. Quite soon we shall complete the work which we set ourselves: reform and reinvigoration of your Lordships' House. The noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, asked about the convention on the Queen's Speech. As far as I am aware it is presently alive and well and I have certainly never done anything that could be taken as a breach of that convention.
The four maiden speeches were a genuine pleasure. They produced quite a spectrum, from different parties and different backgrounds. Perhaps I can pay tribute to all of them on behalf of your Lordships.
Would your Lordships allow me a brief self-indulgence? If you do not, I know that no one else is likely to do so. Since I have been here, this is the first year that we have not had a contribution on such an occasion from the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish. He was a doughty opponent; sometimes acerbic, always vigorous and always good humoured. He served this House very well on the Front Bench in government and in opposition. He will continue to serve the House well from the Woolsack. There is much to be done to reform our antique ways and I believe him to be the man to lead us in that task. On a personal basis, perhaps I can also say how much I welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, as his worthy successor.
One thing we might consider for the future is the format of these debates. Is it possible to improve it? Can one sensibly sum up—I think not—four days of debate, concentrated intellectual effort, in around 25 minutes? Have we become in danger sometimes of having a series of Second Reading speeches on Bills shortly to be introduced and therefore lengthily to be repeated? I am not sure that we serve our ways best in
478
sticking to a formula simply because it is what we have always done in the past. I offer that as a personal thought only without any authority from behind me.
This may be the last Queen's Speech of this Parliament. One or two noble Lords seem to have hinted at that. I have the express authority of the Chief Whip to say this: there will definitely be a general election in May 2002—unless there has been one before then.
At this stage of the Parliament, this is a government which have not run out of ideas. The usual criticism from the Liberal Democrats is that we have too many ideas. As the Prime Minister said, we set ourselves a programme for the first Parliament. It is an extraordinary achievement. I say that as a purely disinterested and objective observer. The Prime Minister's first job in government has been that of being Prime Minister; the Chancellor's of being Chancellor of the Exchequer. That has been a phenomenal achievement over the past three and a half years.
I shall come to the details in a moment or two, but the hallmark of this Government has been one of authority and competence. It is difficult to remember who was Chancellor of the Exchequer before Gordon Brown took over. And we must remember that my old university friend Kenneth Clarke was not a shrinking violet. This is a man who has dominated the running of the economy of this country in a competent, prudent way which it was difficult to have thought possible at the time of the election in 1997. Obviously this is a time for looking back. No sessional programme is intended to stand alone; it is part of a coherent and continuing plan if we are trusted by the electorate the next time round, whenever that may be.
Some questions—not many—were put to me this evening. I shall not be able to deal with all of them. I shall write or procure my noble friends Lord Bassam or Lord Hunt to do so. I am not being discourteous. The House is entitled to look to me for a review of the four days, rather than for answers to specific questions, though my noble friend Lady Hayman promised I would reply to the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, and I shall do so in a moment. That is in the limited context of the Hunting Bill.
The gracious Speech said that there would be stable levels of growth in employment; there would be continued economic stability which has enabled the Government to increase the resources available for education, health, transport and police services. All of that has been delivered. It does not contain one syllable of hyperbole. As I said, it has been an extraordinary achievement. It is worth bearing in mind, though this almost seems like pre-history to many of us now, that May 1997 was not that long ago. At that time—not long ago—we were spending more on interest payments than on the entire schools programme. Government borrowing has gone down since that time by £4.4 billion. Long-term interest rates are the lowest for 30 years. There are 1.1 million more men and women in work now than when we took over stewardship. Claimant unemployment is at its lowest

479
for 25 years and, critically—I shall return to this in a moment—250,000 young people have now obtained jobs through the New Deal who would never have had productive employment.
There is a moral imperative here to which I do not shrink from referring. What I believe the overwhelming majority of our fellow citizens want and need is ordered, decent, structured civil society when they can have and express in their own lives the belief that their children have the prospect of a happier and better life than they. I believe that that chimes entirely with what was said earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Kirkham. Incidentally, if I interrupt myself, if there comes a time when the noble Lord, Lord Kirkham, decides to give up the day job, he would be well suited on the Front Bench. However, I believe that he might find himself more suited on our Front Bench than on his.
The moral imperative to which the noble Lord referred—and I could not agree more with what he said about nurture, the opportunity of advancement for work and for order in a child's life—is the motive and engine power which drives our agenda. I deeply and fundamentally believe that ours is a great country. I personally have cause enough to know that. We castigate ourselves too much. We are not a perfect society but I believe that we are a great hearted one. We have the confidence now more than ever to accept every challenge, to invite every question and to say, "Yes, your criticisms may be justified and we can do better. But, equally, some things we do rather well".
I want to say a word or two about the public service arid those who work in it. Day in and day out in the work I do now and in the work I did in the Home Office I see people who work in the public service. They do not do it for stratospheric salaries. They do not do it from an ego trip. All of them across the spectrum do the work significantly for quiet, decent satisfaction of work well done in the course of a wider community of which we are all part. My Lords, there is such a thing as society.
We have done much for working people, not necessarily only those in the public service. There is a national minimum wage; there is an entitlement to four weeks paid holiday; and there are new rights for part-time workers. I believe that that agenda, having been written by us and supported admirably by the Liberal Democrats, has changed the context of the debate, because hardly a rational argument is sought to be put against those reforms.
What have we done in the context of foreign affairs and defence? I speak from recent personal practical experience and I say that our voice is welcomed in Europe. Our colleagues in the law, in politics, in the judiciary and in all the relevant fields want to know from our experience. They will not be taught all our lessons but they want to know what they are.
In defence, for the first time in more than a decade, this year's settlement has produced a real-terms increase in the defence budget. When I speak of public service I include all those in the Armed Forces. We ask a lot of them; we ask them to do different work all over
480
the globe. I accept that such work would not have been asked of them 25 years ago, but their lives have changed and they have the internal fortitude and confidence to know that their challenges are different and to rise to them. I believe that in everything they do they are entitled to our full-hearted support.
I want to spend a moment or two on education. We wanted to get the basics right. David Blunkett is a very considerable Secretary of State—I would guess the best we have had for 25 years and more. What has that meant to those who are under-privileged because they come from poor homes? We have now brought about the percentage of children to Level 4 and beyond in English from 65 to 75 per cent and in maths from 59 to 72 per cent. Large classes for infants have fallen from half a million, which was our ruinous inheritance, to fewer than 30,000. Not bad! That is a much more fundamental and lasting redistribution than the headline redistribution of money. These matters go to the fundamentals of human life. I have no doubt that those early years are the most important in the educational context. Although there is much more to be done, we have made a tremendous start.
We have dealt with health and home affairs today. It is idle for me to attempt to repeat—even if I could fully remember—the words of my noble friend Lord Hunt. The programme of the Home Office has been set out and, somewhat surprisingly, slightly derided. The prayer of the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, was, "Please, God, no more Home Office Bills". Which ones do the noble Lord and the Liberal Democrat Benches want to discard? The Bill to regulate the private security industry? I hope not. The Bill to cut vehicle crime and reduce the opportunity to dispose of stolen vehicles? I hope not. The Bill to deal with money-laundering? I hope not. The Bill to reduce benefit fraud? I hope not. There might be a tiddler in the list concerned with mode of trial but, as noble Lords have told me on so many occasions, I shall not be troubled long with it. This is a significant programme.
The Home Office always gets the stick because it is the parent department. If we get these Bills right—of course the detail matters—they will bring about a significant improvement to our armoury, which is presently defective, to deal with serious crime. We have not sufficiently concentrated our intelligence resources on crime which is now in a different league from that we experienced 20 years ago.
I turn to fox hunting. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, asked about the situation in the other place. I did my best to discover the position. My understanding is that First Reading was on 7th December and the Bill was published on 8th December. The present business plan is to hold Second Reading on 18th December. I have just picked up a whisper from the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, which is also in my brief, that it may well be changed to 20th December. Events have overtaken me because I have been in the Chamber all day. The subsequent stages will follow in the usual way.
I turn to the fight against crime. The Crown Prosecution Service has historically been underresourced and under-funded, but there is good news on

481
that front. The settlement was to be £315 million for 2001–2. However, there is to be a further £71 million, which is an increase of almost one quarter, in year one and a further £81 million and £93 million in years two and three. The Lord Chancellor has also set up a criminal justice system reserve of £525 million to be distributed by mutual agreement between my noble and learned friend, the Home Secretary and myself. These are very significant advances. If any unworthy accountant asks whether these sums have already been announced or they are cumulative, the answer is no. These sums should make a very significant difference.
I promised the noble Lord, Lord Cope, with whom I had a conspiratorial agreement, that I would not go over 20 minutes. The noble Lord stuck to his bargain and I shall do likewise.
Let us not forget what has been said about Northern Ireland in the gracious Speech. There will be a Bill to implement the recommendations of the review of the criminal justice system in Northern Ireland. In that context I pay tribute to the very close co-operation that I have had from both the Lord Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.
The Commonhold Bill will attract no headlines but it is desperately important to a very large number of our fellow citizens who are worried and fearful in their own homes. I have had to take a panoramic view.
482
I return to the theme, which I hope has been distilled, that has informed the whole of this four-day debate. The purpose of government is to serve, and all of us in this House have the privilege to help in that great work in however small a way. Why is that? I believe that we all have a deep regard for our country in spite of all its blemishes and eccentricities, and significantly because of them. It is an extraordinary place and we are living in times the extraordinary nature of which I think sometimes we barely recognise. This is a time of great national reform and fundamental renewal. The books will be written about this time in the same way as we look back into the mists of the Great Reform Act 1832.
The question comes to this: why is it that we wish to reform and renew? It is not because we have a distaste for old institutions. It really comes back to this simple question: is there any country in the world where one would rather live? The answer is always no. That is the deep and true reason why I commend the gracious Speech to your Lordships and why we are so intent on continuing on the journey that we set ourselves. We do it because we love this country and we want to make it better.
On Question, Motion agreed to nemine dissentiente; the said Address to be presented to Her Majesty by the Lord Chamberlain.
House adjourned at twelve minutes past ten o'clock.

  Eritrea: Diplomatic Representation
  Eritrea: Diplomatic Representation
  Race Relations (Amendment) Act
  Race Relations (Amendment) Act
  Continence Pads: VAT
  Continence Pads: VAT
  Primary Legislation: New Format
  Primary Legislation: New Format