Sitting of 7 March 2000

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

    GREENHAM AND CROOKHAM COMMONS BILL (By ORDER)
    Order for Second Reading read.
    To be read a Second time on Tuesday 14 March.

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

    Tenant Participation Compacts
    Helen Jones: If he will make a statement on the implementation of tenant participation compacts. [112172]
    The Minister for Housing and Planning (Mr. Nick Raynsford): Bringing tenants into the heart of decisions affecting their homes is a vital part of our agenda to improve local services, increase local democracy and strengthen local communities. Tenant participation compacts, which are being introduced by councils from April, will set out how tenants can be involved in local housing decisions in ways that meet their needs and priorities. The Government will make £12 million available to councils over the next two years to help with the extra costs of setting up compacts. Parallel assistance for tenants of housing associations has been made available through the Housing Corporation.
    Helen Jones: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply, and it is welcome to hear how much money will be made available to councils to implement the compacts. What steps will he take to ensure that councils involve the widest possible number of tenants in compacts and spread their net to involve a wide variety of people, not simply a self-selected few?
    Mr. Raynsford: My hon. Friend makes a fair point about the importance of ensuring that good practice extends throughout the local authority world. We are keen to monitor progress, to highlight the achievements of those authorities that are doing best in tenant involvement and to encourage good practice to spread more widely.
    Mr. John Bercow: While tenant participation compacts can, and probably will, be helpful
    846
    in developing a superior housing service in the future, what does the Minister intend to do now about the scandal across the country of empty council housing that is predominantly the responsibility of left-wing authorities that are providing rotten services at rip-off prices?
    Mr. Raynsford: The Government attach the most serious importance to the problem of empty properties, and they occur in all sectors. There are too many properties empty in the local authority sector and there are too many privately owned empty properties. The Government are taking steps across the board to encourage bringing properties back into use. In particular, we are encouraging local authorities to develop local empty properties strategies to identify those homes that are empty, to take action to bring them into use and to put in place supportive measures with other bodies, such as registered social landlords, that can help in that process.

    Regional Policy
    Mr. David Taylor: If he will make a statement on his proposals to strengthen regional policy. [112173]
    The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. John Prescott): The launch of the regional development agencies last year demonstrated our commitment to maximising the potential of the English regions. We now look forward to seeing their implementation plans for the regional strategies that the Government welcomed in January this year.
    We have also secured the establishment of voluntary regional chambers in all the English regions outside London. Together with the RDAs, those bodies are helping to build up the voice of the regions and to enhance regional identities.
    Mr. Taylor: Is my right hon. Friend happy that our regional policy adequately addresses the very serious state of the textile, clothing and footwear industry, which employs a third of a million people, a quarter of whom are in the east midlands? The industry is bigger than farming, car manufacturing or the chemical industry. Does he agree that it is as important to defend the interests of poorly paid women in east midlands textile factories as it is to defend the interests of well-paid men in the London-based financial services?
    Mr. Prescott: The House is aware of the difficulties that the textile industry and its workers have been facing for some time. I am glad to say that the regional development agency in the east midlands is working closely with the East Midlands Clothing and Textiles Partnership, which is exactly what regional bodies should be doing. It has brought together all the interests in the industry and examined how they may develop and sharpen its competitiveness. That is why the RDAs are so

    847
    important for reducing the disparities between and within the regions, which would be made worse now that the Tories are preparing to abolish them.
    Mr. Archie Norman: Does the Deputy Prime Minister remember saying in December 1996:
    as we have made clear in our Manifesto we are committed to moving, with the consent of local people, to directly elected regional government in England?
    Can he clarify how that pledge squares with a statement made by the Minister for Local Government and the Regions who said, when asked whether she would introduce elected assemblies in the next Parliament, that she had "no idea"? Will "no idea" be the Deputy Prime Minister's chapter in the next manifesto and is not the real truth that Downing street and the rest of the Government have backed off that pledge and left him hanging out to dry?
    Mr. Prescott: I am glad that the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman) has decided to intervene on these occasions and that he has started off by quoting our manifesto. Our position now is precisely as it was then. We are developing the new manifesto—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah."] We are a party that implements its manifesto. We have already implemented 80 per cent. of the manifesto that we put before the country and we are planning the new one because we have no doubt that we will be the party in power next time. The reason for that is that our policies are relevant to people. For example, the regional development agencies have already done much—and will do more—to reduce the economic disparities between regions. However, the hon. Gentleman proposes to abolish them. Perhaps he should pay some attention to that.
    Mr. Norman: It is hard to tell whether the Government remain committed to elected assemblies. If they do, why cannot the House now be told when they will be introduced? What will happen to the county councils as a result? Will the Deputy Prime Minister clarify why he has described elected assemblies as being very important, whereas the Minister for Local Government and the Regions described them as a diversion? Perhaps both are really saying the same thing, for once—that they are an important diversion.
    More importantly, will the Deputy Prime Minister clarify who is responsible for this area of Government policy? First, he had transport taken away from him and given to Lord Macdonald, then responsibility for the countryside was transferred to the Minister for the Cabinet Office, and now we understand that the Committee for the Regions is to be chaired by Lord Falconer. Whenever the Government have an expensive failure on their hands, do they not always call for the Minister for the dome? Is not the truth that the Government are moving away from elected regional assemblies because they have learned that the only way to rig elections successfully is to make sure that everyone involved is appointed?
    Mr. Prescott: That is really cutting stuff. The Government's regional policy is implemented by me and my Department. I certainly retain responsibility for
    848
    transport: others may say that I do not, but I notice that they are always asking me to make the statements to the House.
    The hon. Gentleman referred to regional assemblies. They have already been established, include 100 Tory councillors, and are supported by the Confederation of British Industry and the Trades Union Congress. Will he say whether he will persist with his intention to abolish them?
    Mr. Dennis Skinner: Whatever my right hon. Friend does with regional government, he must not have it quoted on the stock market. If he did, would not educated Archie over there buy it, and sell it off to Wal-Mart?
    Mr. Prescott: I have no doubt that the experience to which my hon. Friend refers will be best utilised in the next statement to be made to the House.

    Road Noise
    Mr. Michael Fallon: How much will be spent on motorway and A-road noise mitigation in 2000–01. [112174]
    The Minister for the Environment (Mr. Michael Meacher): The Highways Agency has undertaken to spend £5 million on noise mitigation measures in 2000–01 at high-priority locations on trunk roads, which include motorways and major A-road links. This is in addition to the expenditure on providing quieter road surfaces during the course of normal maintenance.
    Mr. Fallon: My constituency includes a triangle of busy motorways that increasingly is to the detriment of the parishes of Kemsing, Otford and Chevening. The ring-fenced funding is very welcome, but when will modern asphalt and better screening be used to give a better quality of life for those who live in those tunnels of noise?
    Mr. Meacher: I entirely understand the hon. Gentleman's point. He is referring, I think, to the triangle created where the M25 and M26 connect with the M20. We recognise that excessive noise is a major concern to people who live near busy roads. He will know that we set out the sift criteria for dealing with that problem in a parliamentary answer on 22 March last year. A composite list of all roads meeting those criteria was published on 11 November. The Highways Agency is developing the programme of priorities within that list. Some of those studies were completed by the end of last year, and I am sure that the others will be completed soon. The Highways Agency expects that 1,200 lane-km of trunk-road network will be resurfaced in 2000–01, at a cost of about £20 million. Perhaps some will be in the hon. Gentleman's area.
    Mr. Bill O'Brien: I thank my right hon. Friend for the information about what the Government are doing to reduce noise from motorways. However, will he investigate a problem in my constituency that involves properties near motorways? When we approached the Highways Agency about the matter, it quoted the previous Government's decision not to make available expenditure

    849
    for reducing the noise suffered by people who live in properties built near motorways. Will he investigate the situation with a view to rectifying it? Under the Tories, motorways were built near properties, yet the people living in them are being denied insulation to reduce the noise.
    Mr. Meacher: My hon. Friend makes a very fair point. As we all know, under the previous Government, the cheapest measure was often that which was implemented. We do not believe that that is necessarily right. "A New deal for Transport: Better for Everyone" published in July 1998 recognised the problem. The roads review that we implemented at that time said:
    Quieter road surfaces will be specified routinely in all future contracts for resurfacing. The most appropriate noise reduction measures will be used when noise is of the greatest concern.
    We believe that that is right, and it is very different from what happened under the previous Government.
    Mr. Robert Syms: Is the Minister not ashamed that the Government are spending only £5 million on the important topic of noise reduction? Is he aware that of the 174,000 miles of road network, that money will allow noise reduction measures to be carried out on only 60 miles a year? Is this not a case of the Government failing to deliver on the promises that the Deputy Prime Minister made in "A New Deal for Transport: Better for Everyone"? Is this not just another Government failure on roads?
    Mr. Meacher: I must say that the hon. Gentleman has a brass neck to accuse us of spending only £5 million when his Government not only did not spend £5 million, but built the noisy roads in the first place. He is also wrong to say that that amount is necessarily limited to 60 miles of road. I have already indicated that operational requirements in terms of maintenance and roadway improvement will lead to resurfacing with a quieter surface as a routine measure. In addition, we will be providing noise mitigation measures over a much greater length of motorway or of other trunk roads by the use of noise barriers and other measures.

    Rough Sleepers
    Mr. Nigel Beard: What progress has been made in reducing the number of rough sleepers. [112175]
    The Minister for Local Government and the Regions (Ms Hilary Armstrong): In December 1999, we published our national strategy on rough sleeping "Coming in from the Cold" and announced that the number of people sleeping rough across England had already fallen by more than 10 per cent. between June 1998 and June 1999. More recent street counts have shown that the number of people sleeping rough in central London has fallen by one third over the past year.
    Mr. Beard: I thank the Minister for that welcome reply. What support services are being provided to encourage former rough sleepers to stay in permanent accommodation rather than take to the streets again?
    Ms Armstrong: That is an important part of the strategy. "Coming in from the Cold" refers not just to
    850
    coming into a building but to coming into a supportive framework. People will be tracked, given support when they eventually move from hostel accommodation into more permanent accommodation and given support while they are there. We are encouraging voluntary organisations to work with us in a new way to ensure that people who are rehoused have the support to continue to maintain their independent living.
    Mr. Peter Brooke: As Ms Casey has indicated that the solution to the problem of rough sleeping in Westminster is at the heart of the problem in central London, will the Minister pay tribute to the network of voluntary agencies, the police and the local authority that Ms Casey has inherited?
    Ms Armstrong: I am delighted to pay tribute to the work that is going on in Westminster and the co-operation between the local authority, the Government, the police and the voluntary sector. Significant changes are taking place, and the number of rough sleepers in Westminster is an important part of tackling the problem overall. I am encouraged that co-operative working across the board and new ways of working are already showing real results.
    Mrs. Anne Campbell: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the welcome progress being made in reducing the number of rough sleepers. However, will she consider the effect of the case of my constituent Ruth Wyner, who has been jailed under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, on charity workers and others in the homelessness sector who might be afraid of a similar occurrence?
    Ms Armstrong: I know that there has been much concern about that case, although I cannot comment on it because it is under appeal. I can reassure my hon. Friend and the charity world that the case should have no impact on how people work. Those who run hostels or work with rough sleepers have a clear responsibility to take every care with the most vulnerable people, including those who are drug-dependent. However, they should have nothing to do with drug dealing, which is, and has long been, illegal. For many years, charities have ensured that they worked with that fact. My understanding is that the case makes no difference—
    Madam Speaker: Order. The case is sub judice, and the right hon. Lady should not discuss it in that way.
    Mr. Don Foster: Does the Minister agree that rough sleepers should be directly involved in designing schemes intended to help them? Given her answer about empty homes, is she aware that there are across the country—including in central London—significantly more empty homes than registered homeless households? Would she be prepared to consider extending the powers of local councils to allow them to take tougher action to bring those empty homes back into use?
    Ms Armstrong: I expect rough sleepers and the homeless to be involved in developing any strategy. Outside London, local authorities are in control of strategy. I remind the hon. Gentleman that homelessness is rarely simply a matter of not having housing. Our responsibility is to ensure that we tackle coherently across

    851
    Government and Departments the real tragedy of rough sleeping, and we are determined to do that. We believe that we can further reduce the number of people sleeping rough, and that we can tackle the overall problem. That requires everyone—including local authorities—to play their parts.

    Regional Assemblies (Social Exclusion)
    Ms Hazel Blears: If he will make a statement on the potential role of regional assemblies in tackling social exclusion. [112176]
    The Minister for Local Government and the Regions (Ms Hilary Armstrong): The eight regional assemblies and chambers are already starting to identify social exclusion issues in their regions and will have an important role in setting the regional context for tackling social exclusion. That will include, for instance, neighbourhood renewal, on which the Government's social exclusion unit is in the process of drawing up a national strategy.
    Ms Blears: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Now that we are all comfortable with the fact that there are real disparities in economic performance between and within regions, can she confirm that she will encourage regional development agencies and assemblies to develop policies to tackle unemployment, skill shortages and all the issues that contribute to social exclusion? In particular, will she encourage the sharing of regional good practice on social exclusion, such as the unique Salford school for social entrepreneurs, which is setting up community businesses and giving people real opportunities for the future?
    Ms Armstrong: I am delighted to hear of the work taking place in Salford to tackle social exclusion. I shall certainly encourage regional assemblies and RDAs to pick up good practice and spread it. They have a prime responsibility to tackle disadvantage wherever it arises, and to develop and implement strategies to do that. Unless they take account of social exclusion, they will not succeed in uplifting the economic performance of their regions.
    Mr. Tim Loughton: Can the Minister explain why she thinks that the regional assemblies, whose administrative costs alone will be more than £205 million a year, are better placed to tackle the worsening problems of social exclusion than elected and accountable local authorities? Her own Department was condemned by the Government's performance and innovation unit for failing to deliver co-ordination between Departments, for poor cross-cutting and for making unnecessary obstacles in dealing with social exclusion. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation has warned that, despite 100 spin-doctored policy announcements about tackling poverty and social exclusion, the problems continue unabated. How long will it be before the Secretary of State loses responsibility for this flagship issue too? The Secretary of State is all talk and no trousers and has all but lost his briefs.
    Ms Armstrong: I am sure that the country will be weary of the Tory Opposition failing once again to admit
    852
    to their responsibilities. The reason we had to set up the RDAs and the reason why regional assemblies were formed—they arose in the regions; the Government did not set them up—was the failure of the previous Administration to address regional imbalances and to understand the yearning in the English regions that their problems should be tackled. The previous Government did nothing; we are developing a coherent regional policy and a strategy to address the problems. People out there know the problems need to be addressed; it is a pity that the Opposition do not.
    Mr. Peter L. Pike: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the regional assemblies and the RDAs are already showing that they are better able to tackle social exclusion and economic problems in their areas? Does she think that, in the long run, they should also be given powers to deal with the problems of education and housing in the regions? They will ensure that we have better answers for local problems and better use of Government resources.
    Ms Armstrong: I agree with my hon. Friend that regional assemblies and RDAs already make a significant impact in the regions. It is a pity that the Opposition have not picked up that fact. Perhaps when they do so, we shall see another U-turn. The work that is being done in the regions will be developed over time. We shall work with people in the regions to make sure that the agencies work on what they want locally in a way that produces a real difference.

    A10
    Mr. James Paice: When he plans to de-trunk the A10. [112178]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Chris Mullin): No firm date has been fixed for de-trunking the A10. However, the hon. Gentleman may be pleased to know that, during the next financial year, the Highways Agency proposes to install traffic lights at the junction with Butt lane, which I know has been of concern to him.
    Mr. Paice: I thank the Minister for his answer and for the courtesy of contacting me to find out what I wanted to raise. However, that does not excuse the fact that, when the Government announced the de-trunking of the A10, they abandoned the two bypasses that were planned north of Cambridge going towards Ely—the Landbeach and the Stretham bypasses. Will he assure me and my constituents that, when the A10 is de-trunked, Cambridgeshire county council—the highways authority—will have the necessary resources to carry out the improvements that his Government abandoned?
    Mr. Mullin: I find that extraordinary. The Tories cut road maintenance by 9 per cent. over four years; we have increased it by 10 per cent. In the short time that we have been in office, we have reversed the £200 million cut in local authority maintenance funding. After de-trunking, there will be a transitional funding arrangement; in due

    853
    course, it will be integrated into the local transport plans. Funding will be available; it will be rather more generous than that provided by the Conservative Government.
    Dr. George Turner: My hon. Friend will know that the A10 is the road from London to my constituency. We also anticipate the de-trunking of the A17, leaving only one trunk road—the A47—through North-West Norfolk. Does he therefore understand that my constituents are impatient for work to be done on improving the last remaining trunk road? They want not only work to be carried out in studies, but to see some progress in dualling the A47.
    Mr. Mullin: I share my hon. Friend's concern, but he will know that we have a long backlog of repairs and new projects on which to engage. We have already started 37 of them, including 19 bypasses, and no doubt we shall get round to the one in his constituency in due course.
    Mr. Bernard Jenkin: Why will the Minister not answer the question asked by the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Dr. Turner)? When will the A47 be dualled? The Government have cut the roads programme and that has left the hon. Gentleman complaining from the Back Benches. When will we have another roads review to reflect other issues, such as the U-turn in the Government's policy for 44-tonne lorries? How is transport better integrated by off-loading trunk roads on to local authorities? Unless all the bypass programmes are restored, how can the Minister possibly come to the House with a policy that will allow 44-tonne lorries to trundle through our towns and villages?
    Mr. Mullin: One thing that we shall certainly not return to is the wish list that the previous Government drew up. It did not produce any new roads; it just produced a lot of talk. We have a programme that covers 37 new roads, including 19 bypasses. We always listen with interest to the demands from those on the Tory Front Bench for more public spending. At least, my hon. Friends on the Back Benches have the advantage of being consistent, which is more than can be said for Tory Members.

    Social Exclusion
    Mr. Michael Jabez Foster: What steps the Government are taking to encourage local authorities to develop services for young people at risk of social exclusion. [112180]
    Mr. John Cryer: What steps the Government are taking to encourage local authorities to develop services for young people at risk of social exclusion. [112183]
    The Minister for Local Government and the Regions (Ms Hilary Armstrong): Reports by the social exclusion unit and others have highlighted the need to develop services for young people and children at risk of social exclusion. We are taking action across government, and a number of Departments are working with local authorities to deliver programmes such as sure start and new deal for communities. In addition, best value will drive up the standard of local authority services, and statutory
    854
    guidance will encourage authorities to develop cross-cutting approaches to service delivery that focus on the needs of socially excluded sections of society and not on traditional service boundaries.
    Mr. Foster: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. The Xtrax centre in Hastings deals with a wide range of issues affecting the excluded young people in that town. However, the withdrawal of lottery and European social funding means that existing projects are often in jeopardy. Will her Department's invest-to-save schemes be available to pick up the shortfall when the other schemes come to an end?
    Ms Armstrong: The invest-to-save programmes are very much targeted at how we can, through public investment, make sure that we improve service delivery and enable services to develop in a local area. The recent round of invest-to-save programmes has provided £23 million of funding for local authority-led projects to develop joint working in the delivery of services. Some of those projects, such as those in Milton Keynes and Worcestershire, were specifically targeted at work with young people. I cannot promise my hon. Friend today that his authority will be successful in terms of the next invest-to-save round, but I assure him that we will work with it to find ways in which good practice can be extended and developed.
    Mr. Cryer: I acknowledge what my right hon. Friend says and I thank her for her answer. However, will she bear it in mind that even in comparatively affluent and prosperous areas, such as the one that I represent, there are pockets of deprivation and unemployment? The bottom line is that areas such as Havering need more resources—however they are brought to bear—to tackle social exclusion and youth disorder, which is closely associated with it.
    Ms Armstrong: I have not yet encountered a local authority that does not say that there are pockets of deprivation in its area. We have been seeking ways to make sure that we measure and recognise those areas more effectively. We are determined to tackle problems wherever they arise, whether or not they are in so-called affluent areas. We are determined also to work with local councils and the local voluntary sector to ensure that our children and young people have the opportunities that they deserve and need if they are to grow up to be the contributing citizens that we all want them to be.
    Mrs. Eleanor Laing: In all her answers the Minister has missed the point. Would not a more effective and efficient way to help people in danger of social exclusion be to give taxpayers' money to the social services departments that so badly need it—instead of wasting it on more politicians and bureaucrats in unnecessary regional assemblies?
    Ms Armstrong: The hon. Lady has forgotten that in the last three years of the previous Administration, the money given to local authorities by central Government was reduced in real terms by 4.3 per cent. In the first three years of this Administration, we have increased that sum

    855
    by 7.8 per cent. in real terms. We are funding local government so that it can tackle problems that the hon. Lady's Government created.
    Mr. Nigel Evans: When will the Minister recognise that she is speaking a lot of twaddle? Local authorities are strapped for cash. They want to do a lot more for the socially excluded, but they see over £1 billion of their money being drained away into useless regional assemblies and the cost of extra government. Is it not about time that the Government returned that money to local authorities so that they can better help people in need?
    Ms Armstrong: Clearly, the hon. Gentleman had worked out that question before I gave my previous answer. The Government have substantially increased, in real terms, the amount going to local government. The hon. Gentleman does not seem to have understood that regional assemblies are not created by the Government or funded by the Government; they are established locally and funded locally.

    Coastal Towns
    Mr. Bob Blizzard: What his strategy is for the regeneration of coastal towns. [112181]
    The Minister for Local Government and the Regions (Ms Hilary Armstrong): We are already addressing the needs of coastal towns through the single regeneration budget, the assisted areas map and European structural funds, and regenerating seaside resorts is a high priority in our tourism strategy. Our rural and urban White Papers, to be published later this year, will set out our policies on regeneration for towns, cities and rural areas in England, including coastal towns.
    Mr. Blizzard: Much has been made of the so-called north-south divide, but do not the league table of unemployment in travel-to-work areas—which shows that most of the top 20 are coastal towns—and new indices of deprivation that highlight poverty in coastal towns point to a coastal-inland divide? Does my right hon. Friend recognise that poor transport links to coastal towns make them even more peripheral? Does she accept that improved road links to Lowestoft in my constituency are needed to integrate it into the transport system and successfully regenerate the economy?
    Ms Armstrong: My hon. Friend makes the point well and reinforces the Government's policy of governing for the whole country, north and south, east and west and coast to coast. That means that we take seriously the problems in coastal towns, and we seek to ensure that we co-ordinate policies across the board, so that the community as a whole will benefit. That of course includes a determined, robust integrated transport strategy.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: I am glad that the right hon. Lady mentioned the integrated transport strategy, and I certainly agree that the issues faced by coastal areas are very similar to those faced by inland areas. Will she nudge the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the hon. Member for
    856
    Streatham (Mr. Hill), thank him for agreeing to come to Weymouth in my constituency in June or July to see the brown route and mention to him how important good roads are to visitors to a seaside town and to the general population? I hope that the right hon. Lady will tell us that the Government will stop dragging their feet on giving funding for the brown route.
    Ms Armstrong: I have every confidence in the ability of my right hon. and hon. Friends to deal with these issues as they have undertaken to the House that they will do.
    Mrs. Ray Michie: I regret to tell the Minister that my constituents and I have no great faith in the Government's strategy for regenerating coastal towns, in the light of the announcement by the Deputy Prime Minister that the Oban coastguard station is to close. That means the loss of 21 jobs and, more important, the loss of local knowledge in that area, which we hope to build up to attract tourism, with increasing maritime activity. I hope that the Minister will persuade the Deputy Prime Minister, who gave us considerable support before the election for the retention of the coastguard stations, to look again at the recommendations of the Transport Sub-Committee and at all the representations that were received, and to reconsider that extremely damaging decision.
    Ms Armstrong: I understand the hon. Lady's concern in respect of her constituency, but she knows that the decision arose from a commissioned report from Lord Justice Donaldson. The Government implemented his recommendation.
    Mr. Simon Thomas: I draw the Minister's attention to the fine detail in the recent Cabinet Office report on social exclusion, which points out that many coastal towns in west Wales, such as Borth and Cardigan in my constituency, have a level of deprivation equivalent to that in inner cities. How will she ensure that such areas can get the maximum benefit from objective 1 funding in the comprehensive spending review? Will she fight for additionality for coastal towns along the west Wales coast?
    Ms Armstrong: Hon. Members are being very inventive in their questions today.
    We have addressed the needs of coastal towns, whereas the previous Administration simply ignored them. We are determined that coastal towns will share in the country's increasing prosperity. We shall do what we can to tackle social exclusion. With regard to objective 1, the hon. Gentleman knows that we are working with the authorities and bodies concerned to ensure that the system is fair to the whole country and that local authorities in Wales can play their part in the objective 1 project.

    National Walking Forum
    Mr. Kelvin Hopkins: When he plans to establish the national walking forum to implement the national walking strategy. [112182]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Keith Hill): We have already published guidance to local authorities on providing for walking in their local transport plans, and more guidance will be published shortly. That will provide practical advice to planners and practitioners in making it easier, safer and more convenient for people to walk, which we hope will add to the quality of life, especially in our urban areas. We are considering arrangements for continuing consultation with interested parties.
    Mr. Hopkins: I thank my hon. Friend for his answer. I am sure that, like me, he is astonished by the statistic that about half of all the traffic on the road between 8.30 am and 9 am is the school run—parents taking their children to school. That creates a serious traffic problem, as well as a health problem. Will my hon. Friend refer the problem to the walking forum when it is established, so that it can propose successful measures to bring the numbers down?
    Mr. Hill: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question. I should point out to him that a separate body, the schools travel advisory group, already exists. It has already reported on these matters and made a number of helpful recommendations to the Government about ways in which we can encourage families to prise their children out of cars and encourage them to cycle, walk or bus to school, as a healthier alternative to the school run.
    Miss Anne McIntosh: The Deputy Prime Minister said in the White Paper that too many of us are using a car for a short distance instead of walking. Will the Minister undertake that next year, the Deputy Prime Minister will leave the two Jags at home when he goes to party conference and walk between the conference centre and the hotel?
    Mr. Hill: This really is becoming rather tedious. I shall treat the hon. Lady's intervention with the contumely that it deserves.

    Forth Rail Bridge
    Mr. Tam Dalyell: If he will make a statement on the results of his inquiry into the safety and maintenance of the Forth rail bridge. [112184]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Keith Hill): I understand that inspectors from the Health and Safety Executive meet regularly with Railtrack to monitor progress against the agreed maintenance plan. The Health and Safety Executive has also undertaken targeted inspections as part of its routine maintenance programme. Railtrack is working to the plan that it produced to comply with the HSE's improvement notice issued in 1996. The HSE's report of its inspection concluded that the bridge was safe; it has no evidence to suggest that the bridge has deteriorated since its inspection. I understand that my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister wrote to my
    858
    hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) yesterday on the matter, and I shall write to the Scottish Executive shortly.
    Mr. Dalyell: But deterioration continues. Given that Wilkie-Hooke, the subcontractor for 13 years, has been forced into receivership—blamelessly, in the opinion of its bank chairman, George Younger—and its experienced, skilful and brave employees have been thrown into unemployment by a puerile row between Railtrack and Rigblast, who will carry out the maintenance and painting of the greatest engineering monument to the experience of the 19th century anywhere in Europe, let alone make it safe for rail services north of the border?
    Mr. Hill: I understand my hon. Friend's proper anxiety, but the termination of the maintenance contract for the bridge is a commercial matter for Railtrack and its contractor Rigblast, as is the relationship between Rigblast and its subcontractor, Wilkie-Hooke. They are not matters for Ministers' intervention. The key point is that the bridge is safe and that Railtrack is actively planning a programme of work to complete refurbishment of the bridge.
    Mr. Alasdair Morgan: As someone who uses it regularly, may I say that the condition of the Forth rail bridge is a national disgrace? Is it not time that somebody told Railtrack to show more expedition than it has demonstrated in the years since the matter was first brought up? Surely it is ultimately up to Ministers to do that.
    Mr. Hill: The nation knows that the bridge is an epic structure, which needs to be protected, and that it provides an essential route to the highlands. However, let me try to reassure the hon. Gentleman by saying that, to date, Railtrack has invested £25 million in refurbishing the bridge, on recoating, new floodlighting and repairs to the steel structure. It will shortly appoint a new contractor to complete the work on the walkways, carry out minor steelwork repairs and enable the bridge to be painted.

    Housing Investment
    Mr. Ivor Caplin: If he will make a statement on housing investment. [112185]
    The Minister for Housing and Planning (Mr. Nick Raynsford): The Government have provided a massive boost—around £5 billion over the lifetime of this Parliament—in resources for housing investment that deliver real improvements in the quality of life and well-being of many low-income households. As a result, local authority housing investment programmes have been increased by no less than 48 per cent. in the coming year. That is part of a comprehensive range of measures to tackle the major housing problems inherited from the previous Government.
    Mr. Caplin: I welcome the Government's new investment in an important part of the United Kingdom's infrastructure. Will my hon. Friend confirm that the new

    859
    investment that the Government propose will be used effectively to tackle the important social housing needs that exist in many constituencies such as mine?
    Mr. Raynsford: I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that he seeks. We are not only providing resources to enable local authorities to tackle the backlog but putting in place proper provision through the best value regime to ensure that authorities achieve real value for money and continually improve the quality of the services that they offer. That is part of the Government's commitment not only to reversing the investment shortfall that we inherited, but to creating a proper climate for efficient delivery of public services to people in need.
    Mr. James Gray: The figure has gone up 48 per cent. compared with last year's, which was lamentably low. Does the Minister accept that the figures are £27 billion invested by us in four years in the previous Parliament, compared with £24.1 billion projected through to the fourth year of this Government—a fall of some £3 billion? If he denies that, will he tell me and the House straightforwardly whether the figures for homeless acceptances—which, after all, must be the litmus test of whether the Government are investing in housing—have gone up or down?
    Mr. Raynsford: I remind the hon. Gentleman that, by the end of this Parliament, capital investment by local authorities and registered social landlords together will be double that which we inherited from the Conservative Government. That is the truth and I can assure him that we are ensuring that the needs of the homeless are met. As he will know only too well, the numbers have been high because housing provision is not made overnight and recovery is taking time after years of neglect and under-investment by the Conservative Government. However, we are addressing those needs and providing the homes, unlike his party, which has spent most of today trying to make cheap political points at the expense of the homeless by saying, "Don't build any houses in the south of England."
    Ms Margaret Moran: I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend and his colleagues on the record housing investment and the change to resource accounting, which are in the sharpest possible contrast with the devastation of house building and housing investment over the past two decades. However, is he aware that my constituency in the inner area of Luton has an acute need for larger refurbished homes? Will he redouble his efforts in discussions with the Chancellor to encourage my right hon. Friend to amend the rules on VAT on refurbishment, thereby making best use of housing investment moneys?
    Mr. Raynsford: I can assure my hon. Friend that we are very keen to ensure that we achieve the best possible use of resources. Of course, matters relating to taxation are entirely for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor. However, I stress that the Government are not afraid of meeting their responsibilities. We recognise the extent of poverty and deprivation and the wide range of housing needs which have not been adequately met as a result of the previous Government's lamentable failure. We are putting that right and, over this Parliament and the next,
    860
    following a successful general election, we shall ensure that the whole country properly provides for the needs of all its population.
    Mr. Mike Hancock: A great many houses—several million of which are more than 100 years old and received improvement grants 30 years ago—are sick and need money spending on them. Does the Minister recognise that unless the Government are prepared to invest, and unless we have a housing programme that includes several hundred million pounds to enable local authorities to make greater use of discretionary awards, we shall return to the days of the bulldozer and slum clearance and have an even worse housing problem?
    Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman makes an extremely important point about the backlog of poor-condition properties—many of them in the private sector—in need of renovation. He will want to know that our forthcoming housing Green Paper will set out a number of important new proposals to attack the problem of disrepair in all sectors, including the private sector, with new and imaginative approaches. I obviously cannot give him the details, but I can assure him that when the Green Paper is published, which will be in the reasonably near future, he will welcome many of its proposals.

    Eurostar
    Mr. David Kidney: Under what circumstances he would make available public subsidy to support Eurostar services north of London. [112186]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Keith Hill): The British Railways Board has a statutory duty to prepare a plan for international through-services. It can consider whether such services should receive subsidy. The board is reviewing its plan for international through-services, which I understand it expects to complete in the summer. Subject to the passage of the Transport Bill, the Strategic Rail Authority will have a duty to produce a strategy for rail services from various parts of Great Britain using the channel tunnel. It will also have powers to subsidise any such service if it decides that is appropriate.
    Mr. Kidney: I thank my hon. Friend for that rather subdued answer.
    North of London, many strong views are expressed about the positive contribution that Eurostar services would make to economic activity and new jobs. How firm is the Government's commitment to the establishment of Eurostar services north of London?
    Mr. Hill: We have made clear our belief that those living beyond London should have convenient and effective access to channel tunnel rail services. As the matter is subject to a BRB review, however, it would be wrong for Ministers to prejudice that review and its outcome at this stage.
    Mr. Nick Hawkins: Is not the Minister really just trying to disguise a rowing back of what the Government have previously said? It was apparent that the plan was for Eurostar services to run out of a newly

    861
    redeveloped terminal at King's Cross and St. Pancras. Does the Minister accept that, if such services are not introduced in due course, people in the north and the midlands will rightly blame the Government?
    Mr. Hill: We are fully aware of the strength of feeling about this matter. That is why we commissioned the A.D. Little review, which has reported. The BRB is reviewing that report, and we anxiously await the results of its review, which is to be published in the summer.
    Mr. Eric Martlew: Has Richard Branson's Virgin Trains made any offer to run Eurostar north of London? I have no objection to that, but I think that many people throughout the country would object if the company were given the east coast franchise. That would mean no competition from north to south; fares would go sky-high, and we would receive a much poorer service in Cumbria.
    Mr. Hill: My hon. Friend, who is a great expert on all matters relating to the west coast main line, will know that we asked A.D. Little to consider the Virgin group's proposals as part of its review. He also knows that Virgin subsequently withdrew its proposals. All the rail franchises are clearly due to be considered in the near future, and again I think it would be inappropriate at this point for the Government to make any public pronouncement on the desirability or otherwise of potential bidders and operators of those franchises.

    Regional Government
    Mr. Graham Brady: If he will make a statement on his plans for regional government. [112187]
    The Minister for Local Government and the Regions (Ms Hilary Armstrong): We are committed to moving to directly elected regional government in England where there is a demand for it expressed in a referendum.
    Mr. Brady: Now that the Government's initiative for regional government in London has descended into utter farce, is it not time for them to abandon their other experiments in regional government, realising that they are expensive and unwanted? Would not the proper way of giving the regions a strong voice be for Members to
    862
    speak out for the interests of their regions, rather than wasting hundreds of millions of pounds on unnecessary bureaucracy?
    Ms Armstrong: The true centralising features of the Opposition are coming out. We know that there are significant differences between regions, and that regions express their differences in very different ways. Far from regional government being hugely unpopular, many Conservative councillors and normally Conservative-supporting business people are involved in both regional development agencies and regional assemblies. If the hon. Gentleman is not aware of that, perhaps he would like to meet some of those people, and try to explain the Tory centralising policy of abolishing RDAs and abandoning the regions yet again.

    South Downs National Park
    Dr. Desmond Turner: If he will make a statement on the progress towards the establishment of a national park in the south downs. [112188]
    The Minister for the Environment (Mr. Michael Meacher): Following my request last September, the Countryside Agency has reviewed the interpretation of the statutory criteria for designation of national parks, taking into account modern needs for open-air recreation close to where people live. Following that review, the agency board is expected to decide at its April meeting how to proceed in respect of a national park in the south downs.
    Dr. Turner: As I am sure my right hon. Friend is aware, there are those who have still not accepted the principle of the protection of national park status for areas in the south downs. The area to be circumscribed by the new national park is therefore critically important, and the intention of establishing such a park will be entirely subverted if too many—or, indeed, any—significant areas are excluded from the existing area of outstanding natural beauty. Does my right hon. Friend accept that, to protect an area and to defend it against pressures, whatever they are—there are many on the south downs—protection should start at the margins?
    Mr. Meacher: My hon. Friend is right to identify the two particular issues that have to be determined by the Countryside Agency. The first is the identification of the boundary. The agency is starting with the south downs and with the east Hampshire AONBs, but, as I have said, it has reviewed the criteria and will have to decide on the boundaries that are appropriate in accordance with the new criteria. The other issues that remain to be determined are planning and financial arrangements. I also expect the agency to deal with those as a matter of priority.

Planning
3.31 pm
The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. John Prescott): With permission, I should like to make a statement about national planning guidance for housing and my regional planning guidance for the south-east.
Over the weekend, hon. Members will have seen press reports relating to the statement. Much of what was reported had already been announced to the House in earlier statements, but I regret and denounce the leaks, as I have said before in the House, and I am doing all that I can to prevent them.
Today I am putting in place policies that will radically alter the way in which we build new homes in this country. I want an end to the wasteful, badly located and poorly designed house building that has gone on for the past 20 years. New housing developments can be well-designed, attractive, well-located and in sustainable places to live. They do not have to take up endless acres of our beautiful countryside.
In February 1998, I set out clear principles in my statement to the House on "Planning for the Communities of the Future". Let me remind the House of them. Everyone should have the opportunity of a decent home. We want to see thriving communities in our towns and cities—what Lord Rogers called an urban renaissance. Our housing plans should support sustainable economic growth in all regions. There is a need to use land efficiently. Land is a finite and precious resource which we must conserve wherever possible.
We must have greater respect for our countryside. That is why we have set a national target that 60 per cent. of new homes should use recycled land or buildings. That compares with the previous Government's target of 50 per cent. Finally, we must seek to reduce car dependence by facilitating more walking and cycling, and improve access between housing, jobs, local services and local amenities by planning for mixed use.
I am today publishing our new planning policy guidance note 3 on housing and our response to the report of the Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs on the draft guidance note.
Today's new planning guidance for England is not just for individuals, but for thriving communities. Important changes in life styles are taking place in England and throughout Europe, which are leading to an increase in households greater than the population growth. No one is asking members of the public to change their existing home, but new homes for additional households must provide the variety and choice to meet the needs of the future. I emphasise that 70 per cent. of new households over the next 20 years will be single person households.
Some will be youngsters setting up home. Some will be people living independently of their families. Some will be elderly people living longer. They will not all want, or be able to afford, executive houses in the countryside. Many will need well-designed, well-located homes for rent or to buy that are affordable and that give them a range of choice and a better quality of life. We must therefore plan for those changes.
864
First, the new sequential approach that is central to our new guidance means that planning authorities must in future give preference to recycling previously developed sites and empty properties—brownfield first, greenfield last.
Secondly, if we are to preserve our countryside and make the best use of spare capacity in our towns, we must make more efficient use of land.
Thirdly, housing must be more affordable. Too many developments make no provision for people on modest incomes. We shall enable local authorities to secure a proportion of affordable housing in larger housing developments, both in urban and in rural areas. That will benefit many single people, low-income families and key workers, such as nurses, teachers and others.
Finally, we must promote mixed-use developments, which integrate housing with shops, local services, transport and jobs. We need sustainable communities, not simply bricks and mortar.
These policies will apply across all the regions of England. Regional planning guidance will put them into practice. The first regional planning guidance will be for the south-east of England, but others will follow in due course.
The south-east is relatively well off, but it lags behind the most prosperous European regions. Moreover, just as in other regions, there are significant areas of unemployment and deprivation within London and the south-east itself. This Government, unlike the previous one, are determined to see fairer sharing in the benefits of growth both between and within regions. One of the reasons why we have established regional development agencies in England's regions is to tackle such disparities.
As I am on that subject, may I just lay to rest one myth perpetuated by the Opposition today, and repeated by the BBC? Let there be no doubt that demand for additional housing in the south-east is not the result of massive north-south migration, but mainly the result of migration within the south-east, particularly from London to surrounding towns and villages.
In deciding how many additional homes need to be provided, I have had to weigh very carefully the different views presented to me. Local authorities in the south-east—known collectively as Serplan, the south-east regional planning committee—proposed that, over 20 years, there should be up to 718,000 additional homes outside London. The proposals were examined in public by a panel led by Professor Stephen Crow, which concluded that provision should be made for 1.1 million additional homes outside London.
All Governments have to make judgments on such strategic issues. Serplan was understandably concerned about the number of new homes to be built in the south-east. However, it failed to take account of future housing needs; did not make provision for affordable housing or account for the growth of single person households; and assumed that there would be the same wasteful use of land as there has been in the recent past.
The Crow panel, for its part, applied a rigid predict and provide approach, and it did not pay sufficient attention to the capacity of London and the south-east to absorb and plan for growth sustainably.
I believe that we must take a different approach. I shall consult local authorities in the south-east on the basis that they should plan, monitor and manage housing provision in their region.

865
Local authorities should plan to provide 43,000 additional dwellings a year outside London, subject to regular review not less than every five years. It is clear that, using the old 20-year predict and provide system, 43,000 homes annually would add up to 860,000 new homes in total. However, we have moved away from a 20-year plan to our new approach of plan, monitor and manage. No one can with certainty predict how many extra households will exist in 20 years. Our benchmark of 43,000 homes annually is approximately 10 per cent. more than the current rate of construction in the south-east. Professor Crow's recommendations implied a 40 per cent. increase.
Based on the advice of the London Planning Advisory Committee, London should plan to provide 23,000 new homes a year, the vast majority of which will be on brownfield sites. That is a 22 per cent. increase on current build rates and is accepted both by me and, I believe, by all parties. Local authorities should, therefore, plan for that amount of building.
Planning authorities should monitor against a series of indicators, such as house prices and changes in housing stock and vacancies. They should manage and, if necessary, adjust the rate of development in the light of such monitoring.
Additionally, I propose that 60 per cent. of all new homes in the south-east should be provided on brownfield sites. I am determined that we should take as little greenfield land as is necessary to provide the new homes that will be needed. Our proposals will save 42 square miles of countryside compared with Professor Crow' s—enough to build a city the size of Manchester.
Our proposals will provide homes for more people, but because of our policies for less land take, they will use no more land than the Serplan proposals. Our new guidance makes it clear that the Thames gateway will remain a focus for development. I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) for his vision of a thriving Thames gateway. Under our plans, which will include an extension of the Thames gateway area and new delivery mechanisms, the area will become a hub for development and regeneration, with fast links to London and Europe.
After brownfield development, the most sustainable greenfield option is to build town extensions. In the south-east I propose that we should investigate the potential for high-quality, well-planned development in two main areas: Milton Keynes and Ashford in Kent. That will all be subject to further studies, which will be taken into account in the next review of planning guidance. For the longer term, consideration will also be given to the possibility of growth in the M11 corridor, including Stansted.
My statement strikes the right balance between competing demands. We are proposing the most radical changes since Labour's Town and Country Planning Act 1947. The old predict and provide approach to housing, which under the Tories gave us urban sprawl, out-of-town shopping and pepper-pot development, is dead. We have adopted a new, more flexible approach that will conserve greenfield land and improve the quality and design of housing developments. It provides for good-quality housing, good design and a range of choice that meets people's needs. I commend the proposals to the House.
Mr. Archie Norman: I welcome the Deputy Prime Minister's statement and I thank him for
866
the advance copy, which I received just before Question Time. We have come to learn that when he has bad news to announce, it is briefed to the newspapers first and to the House last. It is therefore no surprise that we have already read what the Government would like us to believe in Saturday's and Sunday's papers. The Deputy Prime Minister says that he regrets the leaks, but the Minister for Housing and Planning was on the airwaves on Sunday and this morning briefing with the gist of the statement.
The statement will be greeted with dismay across the south-east. No matter how hard the Deputy Prime Minister tries to scramble the arithmetic, nothing can disguise the volume of housing being imposed against the wishes of local authorities on towns, villages and countryside in the most congested part of the country.
Of course we welcome the changes in planning guidance designed to encourage building on brownfield sites—although we do not believe that the proposals go far enough—and to give local authorities greater control over the type and character of the housing built locally.
I must however remind the House of the facts that lie behind the announcement. In response to pressure from the Government, Serplan recommended a total of 668,000 houses—not the figure that the Deputy Prime Minister has just quoted—to be built over 20 years. That is the equivalent of 33,000 a year. Professor Crow—the inspector appointed by the Deputy Prime Minister—then produced an alternative report recommending a total of 1.1 million houses, which is the equivalent of 54,000 a year. Will the Deputy Prime Minister confirm that, although he talks about 43,000 houses a year and a five-year time horizon, the reality is that over 20 years that will add up to 900,000 houses—equivalent to the building of eight towns the size of Slough? That is substantially ahead of Serplan and will absorb green fields all over the south-east.
Is it not an inevitable consequence of building on such a scale that a large proportion of green fields will be lost for ever? How does the Deputy Prime Minister conclude that no extra green fields will be used up when he is planning to build 200,000 more houses than Serplan recommended? As housing is one issue that remains his direct area of responsibility, I have some specific questions for him.
Since the right hon. Gentleman states that emigration from London is one of the problems that he is trying to address, can he explain how much emigration from London and the town centres in the south-east is implied by his new target? What evidence does he have for his incredible claim that there is no implied migration at all from the cities of the north?
What are the implications of the right hon. Gentleman's projections for congestion in the south-east? In particular, how many extra miles of road will be needed? How many extra school places will be needed? How will the cost of that infrastructure be met? Can the Deputy Prime Minister tell us—since it was leaked to The Observer on Sunday—what representations he has made to the Treasury regarding the possibility of lowering the rate of VAT on brownfield conversions, or is this yet another issue where he has been rolled over by the Treasury?

867
What advice does the Deputy Prime Minister have for local authorities which are now preparing local plans that will have an effect far beyond the five-year period, or is this five-year review a gimmick to avoid focusing on the real target of 900,000 houses over 20 years?
What proportion of the new housing will be suitable for single people and elderly people living alone? Does the Secretary of State acknowledge that the majority of houses will be multi-occupational, and that virtually all the houses built on greenfield sites will be multi-occupational? Is that not totally at odds with the Government's own household projections, resulting in the wrong houses in the wrong places?
Does the Deputy Prime Minister acknowledge that, with this announcement, he has given the lie to his own statement to this House on 23 February 1998, when he said in relation to housing that
Decentralisation is an essential aim of the Government?—[Official Report, 23 February 1998; Vol. 307, c. 22.]
Is not the fact that he has come down from his castle in Hull to tell people in Sussex, Kent and Surrey exactly how many houses will be built, despite the wishes of local councils, a vivid illustration that the system is actually more centralised than ever?
Is it not the truth that this is a black day for the south-east, a disaster for the countryside and a disaster for the inner cities? Is not the real truth that, with this announcement, the Deputy Prime Minister is forcing local authorities in the south-east of England to build the wrong houses in the wrong places against the wishes of almost all local authorities? Is not this truly the end of the Deputy Prime Minister's claim that this Government are the greenest ever?
Mr. Prescott: That is clearly pathetic. Also, the hon. Gentleman has taken no account of the statement I made, in which most of his questions were answered.
The hon. Gentleman seems to doubt that we can achieve the target figure and use less land or the same amount of land as in the Serplan report. It is an argument of density. In the south-east, there are approximately 24 houses per hectare. We are saying clearly that density can be increased to between 30 or 50 houses in urban areas where people want to live. We want to encourage people to live in better-quality communities in better-designed houses, and in urban areas and brownfield, rather than greenfield, sites. It is a simple calculation that the hon. Gentleman will have made in business, where he made most of his money. However, he needs to do it now in the political sense.
It is a bit much for the hon. Gentleman to criticise me and the Government on greenfield sites. We have increased the amount of greenfield and greenbelt land in this country since we came to power. He was a director of a company involved in the encouragement by the previous Administration of the growth of out-of-town shopping centres. There were 190 such centres in 1979, and 1,100 when the Conservatives left office. More greenbelt land was used by Asda and the rest of the out-of-town shopping centres than by any other developments in this country. At least the hon. Gentleman had the decency, when he was a director of Railtrack, not to speak on safety. It would have been better if he had had the decency
868
not to talk about greenfield sites as a member of Asda's board, which was involved in the rush to build on greenfield sites.
The figures can be achieved through the monitoring and planning process that I have outlined. The hon. Gentleman made another mistake because he clearly had not listened to the statement. Under the old predict and provide policy, the figures were set for 20 years and then disaggregated down for a figure for every local authority to observe. That is wrong; it is much more sensible to set the figures for five years, monitor progress and review the results, and then make any necessary changes. That is better than imposing figures based on a 20-year prediction.
I liked the bit in which the hon. Gentleman said that I would be centrally commanding the situation and directing local authorities. The hon. Gentleman was not a member of the previous Government, but I shall give him some more information about what happened when the Tories were in power. In 1995–96, the Berkshire structure plan proposed 37,000 additional homes, but the Tories imposed 40,000 on the area. Kent county council proposed 113,000 additional homes, but the Tories imposed 116,000 on it. Bedfordshire proposed 47,200 additional homes, but the Tories imposed 49,300 on it.
In fairness, I shall also give the hon. Gentleman some information about our record. When 33,000 dwellings were proposed for Cheshire, the Labour Government allowed it only 31,000. Devon was faced with 83,000 dwellings, but we allowed only 79,000. Gloucester was faced with 53,000, but we agreed a reduction to only 50,000. That is the comparison with the previous Administration both in the establishment of targets and in flexibility when dealing with local authorities. We seek to work towards a solution, in contrast to the ideological requirements that the Tories imposed on local government.
Mr. Martin Salter: Will my right hon. Friend acknowledge that people in counties such as Berkshire—which, as he has pointed out, had 3,000 extra homes imposed on it over and above the Tory-controlled county council's allocation—will welcome the end of the discredited predict and provide policies? Does he recognise that we need affordable housing in the south-east, especially for first-time buyers and key workers in essential industries? For the south-east to survive and to be the engine room of our economy, we need a sustainable housing policy and an end to the absurd situation in my constituency, where two fire-fighters cannot afford to buy properties, because of lack of supply in the Thames valley, and have to commute from Lincolnshire and Dorset. We need to provide houses and homes at affordable prices for workers to sustain our essential public services, whatever area of the country we may live in.
Mr. Prescott: I agree with my hon. Friend and indeed we do wish to end the predict and provide model. In the plan and monitor guidance that we will give local authorities, we will make it clear that affordable housing must be given considerable priority, especially in mixed-use development, to ensure that it happens. That allows the Government to make a judgment about the

869
plans and to work with the local authorities to ensure that the needs of all the people are met, not just those who want executive houses in the south-east.
Mr. Don Foster: How can we have confidence that the Deputy Prime Minister has carefully weighed the two options before him, when it appears that he has merely split the difference between them? How can we have confidence that his statement is not another example of centralised planning, when he proposes 142,000 more homes than experts on the ground in the region believe are necessary? Does he agree that we should talk more about creating new homes than about building new houses? In the south-east, excluding London, there are 130,000 empty homes. Why are we not taking tougher action to bring those empty homes back into use? Why are we not taking tougher action to make better use of existing housing stock? Is it not crazy that we charge VAT on the renovation of buildings but there is no VAT on new build?
Finally, is not the Deputy Prime Minister just whistling in the wind in believing that most of these new houses will be built on brownfield sites? He must be prepared to take the tough action that is needed to ensure that most are built on brownfield sites. He must give support for brownfield site development, and also tax any developments on greenfield sites.
Mr. Prescott: Tax matters will be settled by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as the hon. Gentleman will know. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] All Ministers have to give that answer sometimes, especially before Budgets. It is the proper answer to give, although that is not to say that Ministers and Chancellors do not discuss such matters. The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, but such decisions are made by Chancellors.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether I think that the housing targets can be achieved. I believe that they can, and without a greater land take than that suggested by Serplan. One has to make judgments about densities. I believe that more people will want to live in cities if those cities are good enough to live in. I do not think that we have achieved that yet, but that has more to do with the many other factors involved in community living, such as crime, education and the environment. That is why the planning guidance makes clear the need to achieve sustainable communities.
The argument over density or land take is very important. It was discussed by Lord Rogers in his report on "Urban Renaissance", and he made it clear that the density levels that have been set out would be possible.
In Europe, those levels are normal. In the United Kingdom in general—and in the south-east in particular—density levels are very low. No one would say that a village such as Poundbury was heavily built up, but 40 houses per hectare is the average there. The millennium village that we are planning will have 80 homes or households per hectare. That is the density range that can be adopted, and achieving it represents a challenge to builders, architects and communities alike. I believe that it is possible, and the regional planning guidance makes it clear that we should achieve that.
As for achieving the proposed density levels on brownfield sites, I have made it clear that local authorities and housing authorities will have to use brownfield sites
870
in preference to greenfield sites. However, even if the target is for densities of 50 or 60 per cent. on brownfield sites, we all agree that that will mean that we end up with 40 or 50 per cent. on other sites, or on sites where there is existing accommodation.
I believe that we can achieve that target, which I set some time ago. Since the Government came to power, there has been an increase of 2 per cent. in the number of homes being built on brownfield sites. We have set the target for 2008, and I think that we will achieve it.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. I am now looking for very brisk questions to the Secretary of State. Hon. Members should ask him only one, very brisk question, and I am sure that the Secretary of State will oblige with his responses.
Mr. Derek Wyatt: Is it possible for the map of brownfield sites in the south-east to be published? Also, many houses in my constituency—
Madam Speaker: Order. Given that so many hon. Members want to question the Secretary of State, I can allow only one question at a time. The entire House is getting to its feet to catch my eye, and I must safeguard the rest of the day's business.
Mr. Prescott: If it will help, Madam Speaker, I shall answer only one question at a time, even if more than one is asked.
Madam Speaker: That is very kind. Then you can select the question that you want to answer.
Mr. Prescott: That had dawned on me when I offered my co-operation, Madam Speaker.
The registration of brownfield land is an important matter. That is why we established the national land-use data bank. We hope to publish the information shortly, so that people can see where the brownfield sites are. I hope that that will help people to increase the pressure to build on those pieces of land in their areas.
Mr. Damian Green: The Deputy Prime Minister has fingered my constituency of Ashford for large-scale growth—an act of environmental vandalism that will cause justifiable anger. Does he acknowledge that any large development in that area will inevitably be on greenfield sites? Will not his rhetoric today about brownfield sites first and greenfield sites second seem like only so much hot air unless he agrees to drop the proposals?
Mr. Prescott: I think that I made it clear that, although the priority is for brownfield sites, we envisage that there will be new developments as well. In that context, I mentioned Milton Keynes and Ashford. The recommendation regarding Ashford does not come only from me. The Kent structure plans of 1984 and 1996 both suggested that Ashford was an important area for economic development. I agree with them.
Mr. Michael Jabez Foster: May I tell my right hon. Friend that there are areas in the south-east, north of Hastings, where substantial housing could be built subject only to construction of a bypass? Will he consider, when the report comes out, allowing a bypass so that it can be used effectively for the building of houses?
Mr. Prescott: It is an important question. We made it clear in the White Paper on transport and in the plans that we hope to bring before the House shortly that bypasses can play an important part in economic regeneration as well as environmental considerations and housing. I made that clear in statements to the House as well. Bypasses are an essential part of what we call the sustainable communities.
Mr. Ian Taylor: If Elmbridge borough council in Surrey does not think that it can meet the targets originally set by Serplan, how on earth can it meet the targets set by the Deputy Prime Minister today, when there are no brownfield sites left in the borough?
Mr. Prescott: I hope that after what it has heard today the council will look at my proposals. I will be discussing the implications with local authorities, but that takes me back to density. Their concern was that they did not have enough land. These proposals for households are greater than those proposed by Serplan covering the whole of the south-east, but by using higher densities local authorities can achieve the building of more households without taking more land. As to whether we can force them, the previous Administration was pretty good at forcing local authorities to accept their housing projections, even though they were against them.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Will my right hon. Friend accept the congratulations of Labour Members on a very skilful performance on the tightrope? Will he confirm that not building sufficient houses will lead to house price inflation, with a disastrous effect on the country's economy, while building too many will ruin our green fields? Will he also confirm that high-density housing will be provided with services so that we do not make the mistakes made in the 1960s, resulting in high-density housing and poor services for the people living in it?
Mr. Prescott: I record my appreciation to my hon. Friend for the work done by the Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs. We have responded to his Committee's report today, and it was helpful in arriving at some of these deliberations. Anybody reading the Committee's report will know that many of the issues that I have mentioned today were debated in that Committee, and very often supported by its members. I am grateful for that.
House pricing is a matter of great concern which needs a great deal of attention. It is also associated with the shortage of available houses. There are a number of reasons, but that is one of them. For the life of me, I cannot accept the Tories' proposal that the decision should be made by local authorities. A local authority has only to say that it believes in housing but that it should be built in another authority's area. If they all refuse to have any housing development in their areas, that will
872
result in a phenomenal increase in house prices and do very little to meet the needs of ordinary people trying to secure homes.
Mr. Nicholas Soames: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an undertaking to the House this afternoon that no further planning of houses will be allowed in West Sussex without the incremental improvement in infrastructure that is so long overdue?
Mr. Prescott: In sustainable communities, matters other than houses have to be considered, such as transport, housing design, and density of housing. I am trying to bring a more flexible approach to bear on them. One authority in West Sussex was proposing to reduce development by 25 per cent., which was totally unacceptable. I hope that these new proposals will be more acceptable to the local authority and that it can achieve the kind of housing development in the area that it wants.
Mrs. Christine Butler: Which constituencies or local authorities will be in the extended Thames gateway? I thought that I heard my right hon. Friend say that he was committed to an extension of the Thames gateway area. As a person from south Essex, I would be delighted if south Essex were to be part of it.
Mr. Prescott: It is right that we said that we will extend the Thames gateway area. We wish to change the rather loose arrangements for its development, and I shall be making an announcement shortly about the new development body for that area.
Mr. John Redwood: I welcome the reduction from the Crow proposals, but the Secretary of State's statement will be taken badly in my area because it seems as if there will be many more houses than under the previous Government's plans. Will he confirm that Berkshire will be able to say no to any new settlement south of the M4, although I think that he will say the opposite? Does not his statement mean that he will drive not just his two Jags and one Rover, but a bulldozer across the face of rural England, deeply scarring the countryside?
Mr. Prescott: Welcome back.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: The hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman) is not cheering.
Mr. Prescott: At least we can laugh at what the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) says.
In reality, all authorities in the south-east will take account of my guidance, which is more flexible and better than the predict-and-build approach previously taken. I think that it will help local authorities, and I hope that they will approach development more co-operatively than they did in the past. The right hon. Gentleman's local paper, the Wokingham Times made it clear that it is crucial to have
a mix of homes to suit everyone.
The present plan does not provide that, but we intend to do so.
Mr. Paul Clark: Most level-headed people in the Thames gateway area of north Kent will welcome my right hon. Friend's statement and recognise the opportunities that it presents. Does he agree that many brownfield sites that we want to see developed to their full potential require substantial investment on infrastructure and on opening up before major development can occur? What robust bodies and mechanisms does my right hon. Friend envisage to provide that within the Thames gateway?
Mr. Prescott: It is indeed important to secure proper investment for the Thames gateway. The previous Government took a good initiative, and we are supporting and extending it. The connection of any major investment in development with transport communications is important. Ashford and the Thames gateway are closely connected with the channel tunnel rail link, which we had to rescue following its collapse under the previous Government. The link is now on budget and on time, and that will allow it to play a major role in development of the Thames gateway and Ashford. Regional development agencies will also have a major role to play, and they have already begun to plan development, a process that will be helped by my statement.
Sir Nicholas Lyell: Will the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions look again at the potential damage that his proposals are likely to cause to the green fields of Bedfordshire? Does he recognise that, to achieve a mere 50 per cent. of development on brownfield sites, the present figures already take his density increases into account? If the extra 21,000 houses proposed by the Crow report were built, the figures would be closer to 30 per cent. brownfield development and 70 per cent. greenfield.
Mr. Prescott: I think that I made it clear—most people heard me—that I do not accept the Crow report's recommendations. I have given my reasons for that. The numbers that I have accepted are compatible with the land take of Serplan, and are a good compromise, which should be welcome to all concerned. Brownfield sites have a higher priority than greenfield sites but, even under the previous Government, something like 50 per cent. of households were built on greenfield sites—the inevitable implication of having a target of 50 per cent. on brownfield sites. We are attempting to improve the position and have moved from 50 to 52 per cent. We have set a target to 2008, and we are going in the right direction. My statement will provide a major impetus for development on brownfield sites.
Mr. Gerald Kaufman: While my right hon. Friend's first regional planning guidance has been on the south-east, will he confirm that the criteria announced in his statement are national, and that the principle of brown field first, green field last and a rejection of overdue reliance on increased traffic density will be in his mind when any case comes before him?
Mr. Prescott: Yes, I can confirm that. I made a national statement about the principles that will apply to housing. My right hon. Friend knows that each region sets its own plans, and those will be produced presently and
874
publicly discussed. When each one comes to me, I shall take the same approach to it as I do to plans for the south-east region.
Sir Teddy Taylor: As Southend-on-Sea is outside the Thames gateway, we will be exempt from this massive house-building programme. However, if the Secretary of State decides to include us, will he give us a guarantee that extra cash will be provided for secondary schools, bearing in mind that there is not one spare space in any secondary school in my constituency? Will he make extra cash available to provide the necessary facilities if Southend is included?
Mr. Prescott: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about the support of essential infrastructure such as education. As he must be aware, we have put a considerable amount of money into education. As we implement the plans, we shall continue to take into account the problem that he describes.
Dr. Howard Stoate: In Dartford, in the Thames gateway, 80 per cent. of housing is being built on brownfield sites. Our target is 86 per cent.—20 per cent. will be for social housing. When we build new communities, as we are doing, can we ensure that the character of existing communities is protected and enhanced?
Mr. Prescott: It is important that we do that. Indeed, the essence of sustainable communities is that we maintain and build on their existing life. I want to see greater community spirit in some of our housing areas. We have built many soulless estates—with more concern for the construction of houses than for the construction of communities. The emphasis in this plan is on building communities.
Mr. Peter Lilley: How can the Secretary of State pretend that his policy is brown field first, green field last, when his first major action was to approve the largest-ever house-building programme on greenbelt land—10,000 houses in my constituency? As the electorate have turfed out the Lib-Lab coalition of concrete merchants from Hertfordshire county council, why does the right hon. Gentleman persist in giving approval to this plan? Does that not discredit his pretence that he does not believe in central direction? Until he changes his mind, he will not be believed on planning matters—in Hertfordshire or anywhere else in the country.
Mr. Prescott: I appreciate the point made by the right hon. Gentleman. He has made it on several occasions. However, it was his authority that recommended the programme; the planning inspector endorsed it and I endorsed the principles that they set before me. The programme also involves a major transport corridor—like the channel tunnel rail link and Ashford. It forms part of the attempt to ensure that there is growth and development around transport corridors.
Ms Claire Ward: Given my right hon. Friend's support for affordable housing, can he assure us that any new homes that are built will have the support of local authorities, so that the authorities can rent them out

875
and we do not have to rely on housing associations? In many cases, council rents are considerably lower than those of housing associations. That is real affordability.
Mr. Prescott: Those are important points—we are most concerned about such matters. We want to work in partnership with local authorities to provide affordable homes. Indeed, we shall shortly produce a housing Green Paper which will deal with the very real problems that my hon. Friend has mentioned.
Mr. Eric Forth: What guarantees can the Secretary of State give about the integrity of the green belt?
Mr. Prescott: We have always made it clear that a Labour Government introduced the principle of the green belt. We have considerably increased the green belt since we came into office. That is a good indication of our desire to maintain it.
Mr. Ivor Caplin: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement, and the fact that he has rejected the Crow report, and so will many of my constituents. He is aware that in West Sussex, which borders my constituency, there have been 10 years of commercial and retail store building—none of those projects involved house building. That is why we need to build more affordable housing in Sussex so that people can have proper and effective places to live.
Hon. Members: Rubbish.
Mr. Prescott: I note that Opposition Members are shouting "Rubbish" at my hon. Friend's claim that there should be affordable housing. That is precisely the point. The Opposition seem to be more concerned about executive housing than about homes for ordinary people. Affordable housing is our priority. The land should be provided and there should be decent communities. That is what we intend to do; it is fundamentally different from the record of the previous Conservative Administration and from the intentions of the Opposition.
Mr. Peter Bottomley: The Deputy Prime Minister should not hear imaginary voices. In West Sussex, he has increased by 30 per cent. the number of homes that the inquiry recommended. Will he increase further the figures that he managed by legal tricks to get through judicial review, and will he protect the Goring gap?
Mr. Prescott: It is amazing that a former Minister should talk about legal tricks when he must have received legal advice and acted on it. I know that lawyers cannot always be trusted, but Ministers must take the legal advice that is given to them.
In the new approach to the matter, local authorities should consider our proposals carefully and enter into co-operation. That will provide a better housing solution than the one that we have at present.
Mr. Patrick Hall: I welcome the positive news in my right hon. Friend's statement that there is a
876
possibility that there will be an area of plan-led expansion in the Bedford, Northampton and Milton Keynes triangle. That is potentially the most sustainable approach to this issue. Will he assure me that there will be thorough local consultation on how the plans are developed and that there will be an attempt at all times to match jobs with new housing to achieve the sustainable outcome that we all need?
Mr. Prescott: It is important to identify growth, prosperity and jobs along with the developments in housing. We established the regional development bodies to consider precisely how we can develop indigenous assets in the regions and, at the same time, reduce the differentials in growth that exist within regions. The development agencies, the planned reports and the studies that we are conducting will, I hope, bring all those matters together. We cannot have a happy community with high levels of unemployment. Jobs, prosperity and community development go hand in hand.
Mr. Roger Gale: In east Kent in general and in Herne Bay in particular, water supplies are scarce, primary and secondary schools are full, doctors' surgeries are full, the secondary road system is inadequate and police services are at full stretch. We are trying to reduce housing density, but the Deputy Prime Minister has just announced that he intends to increase it. Has he discussed that with the Secretaries of State for Education and Employment and for Health, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Home Secretary? Has he got their consent to go ahead with this ludicrous plan?
Mr. Prescott: Clearly, all the problems that the hon. Gentleman described did not start on 1 May 1997 when the Government came to power. He knows that it takes a considerable time to solve the problems that we inherited from the previous Administration.
Mr. Gale: Two years, and 10,000 asylum seekers.
Mr. Prescott: In two years, we have made considerable advances in investment in public services, transport and in the channel tunnel rail link, the plans for which collapsed under the previous Administration. To that extent, we will take into account regeneration aspects and growth factors. As I said earlier, we have to take account of the growth in school numbers and we have an obligation to do so. Indeed, much of our money has been provided to reduce class sizes. All those factors are an important part of community development. The hon. Gentleman referred to the problems of growth. I want more balanced growth and our proposals will help to achieve that.
Laura Moffatt: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Opposition's argument is unsustainable? If the health service were under pressure and suffered from a lack of nurses because they could not move to the south-east, it would be unsustainable to make a stark argument about further development. My right hon. Friend's proposals will be a means of achieving mixed communities with affordable housing and will help to contribute to a health service of which we can be proud.
Mr. Prescott: My hon. Friend makes an important point. The connection between the health service and other public services will determine the character of the communities in which our people live. I said that key workers will have to be provided for in areas such as the south-east, and I would like to see that point covered in the housing plans that are brought before me. The local mix in communities is important, and I made that clear in the statement. We will require communities to attempt to achieve that, because we must avoid the mistakes that were made in the past. There were huge estates for one class and other estates for another class and the different communities never came together.
Mr. David Rendel: Some of the 43,000 homes in the south-east will, sadly, be lost each year because of the increase in the ownership of second homes. What is the Secretary of State doing to end the peculiar anomaly under which it is rather easier to buy a home as a second home than it is to buy it as a first home? Second homes have half the council tax that is charged on the same house if it is used as a first home.
Mr. Prescott: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about housing finance. We are looking at many issues, including housing benefit and the differential in council tax on second homes to which he referred. Those are matters for serious consideration. My statement today deals with how we can provide sufficient homes for people, and statements will be made later about those other matters.
Fiona Mactaggart: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on dumping the Crow report. May I ask him—
Mr. Simon Burns: Get on with it.
Madam Speaker: Order.
Fiona Mactaggart: Will my right hon. Friend ensure that, in densely populated areas such as mine—the most densely populated constituency in Berkshire—there will be sufficient flexibility to meet local needs? One important local need is for large houses for poor families, and a second need was highlighted just yesterday in a letter to me from the chief constable of the Thames Valley police, who said that he is unable to maintain a full-strength force in Slough because of the cost of housing.
Mr. Prescott: My hon. Friend raises the issue of affordable houses, whether for key workers or for those who do not have much choice and are forced to live in greater density in their existing home. Our policy is designed to try to find affordable homes for more people, and it will hopefully reduce the problems that she has mentioned.
Mr. Crispin Blunt: Will the Deputy Prime Minister explain how, when those numbers are disaggregated down to the level of planning authorities such as that in Reigate and Banstead, the policy behind the figures is anything other than impose and deliver?
Mr. Prescott: As in the old plan, the local authorities represented in Serplan will in discussion with us. One of the fundamental differences is that we have replaced predict and build with the monitor and manage approach, and the programme will last only five years. Local authorities feared that they were being forced to accept figures and build houses according to a 20-year prediction about which they could not be accurate. The five-year approach will give greater flexibility, and we will discuss it in the normal way with local authorities through Serplan.
Mr. Andrew Miller: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the housing situation in the centre of Ellesmere Port, but he may not be aware that there are 800 empty privately owned properties. Will he, as part of the strategy for the reuse of property, encourage the Housing Corporation to look for imaginative solutions for bringing those homes back into use? They would make ideal starter homes and take some of the pressures off counties such as Cheshire.
Mr. Prescott: Yes, that is an important point. It is a matter of considerable concern that there are about 750,000 empty houses in the UK, very few of which are in the south-east or London. We have established a national empty house agency to work with local authorities, and I believe that £160,000 has been provided to help that process. We want to ensure that there is affordable housing, and using existing housing areas and converting existing properties have an important part to play in developing communities and achieving the balance of 60 per cent. of new houses on brownfield sites and 40 per cent. on greenfield sites.
Mrs. Eleanor Laing: The Deputy Prime Minister has announced his intention to impose a large number of new houses on my constituency. Will he confirm that, in answer to questions from my hon. Friends, he has not undertaken to provide funding for the schools, hospitals and roads that we will need once we have all those new houses and new people?
Mr. Prescott: The first point is that we have not imposed any figure on any local authority at this stage. We have made a judgment as to what the annual figure should be. The previous Administration set that figure for 20 years; we say that it should be set for five years. Discussions will take place between the Government and, in this case, Serplan, which represents the local authorities, about how that figure may be distributed. Serplan has suggested the number of houses that will be imposed on the hon. Lady's area. We have to agree to that. New houses will be built in all local authority areas; it is the proportion that must be decided.
Mrs. Laing: What about the funding?
Mr. Prescott: As to the finance, Governments have responsibility to provide the finance for education and infrastructure. We are putting billions of pounds into the infrastructure in the south-east. It might not be in the hon. Lady's constituency, but it is considerably more than under the previous Administration.
Sir Sydney Chapman: Central to the Government's hoped-for success of their policy must be the Secretary of State's enthusiasm for terraced housing, which in today's jargon is high-density, low-level development. Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that it is possible to build 165 homes per acre or 400 homes per hectare? If so, does he realise that that necessarily means gardens for only a few, communal hallways and on-street parking? Overarching all that, does he accept that the success of his policy must depend on pretty radical proposals being delivered by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in a fortnight?
Mr. Prescott: With regard to density, our emphasis is on high-quality design. I have pointed out that, although the average density is 24 houses per hectare, on the millennium site it is 80 houses per hectare. On Georgian terraces, there is high-density housing, but those are desirable properties. The Poundbury development, to which I referred, has a density of about 40 houses per hectare, but it has gardens and is highly desirable. That is the challenge to the designer.
I invite the hon. Gentleman to look at some of the designs being produced, varying from the high-level designs into which we put a great deal of money a long time ago, to low-level and medium density, perhaps two or three storeys. The required density can be achieved, provided that the quality of design is good. That is the key factor, which is why we are giving it so much attention.
Mr. Bob Russell: Does the Secretary of State agree that the term "brownfield" cannot be used to describe sports fields, open spaces or landscaped gardens? Will he give an assurance that there will be no double standards in the Government, and that he will instruct the
880
Ministry of Defence, the national health service and others selling off land to follow the brownfield criteria that he put forward?
Mr. Prescott: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, which we emphasise in policy planning guidance note 3. Land owned by local authorities, the Ministry of Defence or any public body should be in our national databank and should be taken into consideration.
Mr. Burns: Can the Secretary of State tell me unequivocally what the impact of his statement will be on a place such as West Chelmsford, which is expected to build 11,000 houses and where there are not enough brownfield sites for 60 per cent. build? Over the past week, we have seen proposals for 3,200 extra homes in villages such as Margaretting, for more than 1,500 homes on rural greenfield sites in the west of Chelmsford, and for others in the north on greenfield sites. What changes will there be?
Mr. Prescott: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. The 60 per cent. brownfield site that we have agreed is a national figure and will vary from area to area. In London it could be as much as 80 per cent., but areas outside London, such as those mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, do not have that proportion of brownfield site available. That is why we have set a national figure. Through Serplan, we will consider how to distribute those homes. All Governments have had to face the fact that, in order to meet the need for affordable housing, some houses will have to be built on greenfield sites.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Thank you, Mr. Prescott. We must move on.

Speaker's Statement
4.29 pm
Madam Speaker: I have looked into the circumstances of the written answer that was given yesterday by the Home Office on arrangements for asylum seekers. The matter was raised last night by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) and by the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe).
Although I am satisfied that no formal breach of the rules relating to pursuant answers has occurred, it is important that the House is given proper notice of the tabling of questions. The Home Office could have met that criterion simply by answering other questions already standing on yesterday's Order Paper, and without resorting to providing a further answer to a question that was tabled some three months ago.
I regret the use that was made of the procedure yesterday. Had the Table Office had any indication of the scope and extent of the reply, I would have advised it that it was not the practice of the House to allow pursuant answers to be used in that way.
I look to Departments to ensure that answers pursuant to earlier questions are made only in limited circumstances to correct or add information, and are not used to make substantial written statements. To do otherwise is to avoid giving proper notice of important impending answers. I believe that I have made my views clear.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Mrs. Barbara Roche): I accept your ruling completely, Madam Speaker. I wish to apologise to you and to the House for any inadvertent breach of the procedure.
Madam Speaker: I am grateful, Mrs. Roche. Thank you very much.

Sex Discrimination (Amendment) (No. 2)
4.31 pm
Joan Ruddock: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 with respect to the selection by political parties of candidates for parliamentary or local government elections.
I am promoting the Bill because in 1996 the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 was used, contrary to its purpose, to prevent positive action in the selection of Labour women parliamentary candidates. The Bill is necessary for the future avoidance of doubt. In 1993, the Labour party adopted a new selection procedure whereby candidates for winnable seats would be selected from all-women shortlists. Although the policy was controversial, it was highly successful until two disgruntled male would-be candidates challenged it at an industrial tribunal.
Although political parties were exempted from parts of the SDA, the tribunal maintained that selection as a parliamentary candidate led to employment, and that that breached the vital employment provisions of the Act. Industrial tribunal decisions are specific to the case on which they are made. The judgment was not binding on others and did not make all-women shortlists illegal. However, only an appeal could have confirmed or overturned the decision. Such an appeal was never made.
Consequently, many politicians and commentators have held that all positive action is potentially illegal. Indeed, I can testify to the constant challenges that I, as Minister for Women, and my colleagues faced in pressing for positive action under the twinning arrangements that were adopted for selecting equal numbers of Labour women and men for the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly.
While it remains my view, and that of leading barristers, that the SDA's employment provisions do not apply to the selection of parliamentary candidates, the Bill will remove any doubt. It provides for the specific exemption of political parties from the employment provisions of the SDA only when they are selecting candidates for parliamentary or local government elections, and are trying to redress the unequal treatment of women and men. The Bill prescribes nothing, but I am confident that it would remove any ambiguity from future positive action by a political party. It would also stop the Conservative party from hiding behind the smokescreen of illegality.
Why does this matter? If women cannot get selected by political parties, they cannot be elected. The result is a profound democratic deficit. Women make up 51 per cent. of our population, but more than 80 per cent. of Members of Parliament are men. In a democracy, the elected Parliament should mirror the society it represents. That view is not universal—certainly not in the House. However, I ask hon. Members to consider carefully their understanding of political representation.
There are two possible ways in which a group's interest can be represented: by the presence of its members in the decision-making process, or by having its interests simply taken into account in that process. I know which way most women would prefer; however, it is for men to answer.
No one denies that there are men, not least in the House, who have championed women's causes and campaigned on women's issues—I am pleased to have

883
several as sponsors of my Bill. Indeed, the SDA was introduced by a male Home Secretary in Harold Wilson's Government. However, by definition, men cannot bring a woman's perspective to the whole range of political concerns. Most women Members contribute to the House through different life experiences and perspectives. Women electors agree that recent research shows that women still think that women politicians are more in touch with their lives than men. Women want more women MPs because they think that we are more likely to understand the problems that they face. I am proud that my party has recognised that fact. The presence of 101 Labour women, including 34 Ministers, has ensured delivery of policies on women's priorities—child care, family friendly working, the minimum wage, increased child benefit, improved maternity rights and financial help for the less well off through the working families tax credit.
Under the direction of my right hon. Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), the women's unit was established to maintain a focus on delivery for women across all Departments. More recently, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Employment, Welfare to Work and Equal Opportunities has exposed the startling pay inequalities still faced by women in Britain today. The contributions of Labour women Back Benchers are too numerous to catalogue, but they have been well documented in a Fabian Society pamphlet by my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart).
The challenge is how to maintain the momentum. Over the past 80 years, close on 4,500 Members have served in the House. Only 239 have been women. It is significant that two out of every three of those women were Labour women. The position is even more marked today—women MPs make up 24 per cent. of the parliamentary Labour party, but only 9 per cent. of Conservatives and 7 per cent. of Liberal Democrats. It would be easy for my party to rest on its laurels and wait for the opposition parties to catch up, but that would be neither fair nor just, and it would be out of step with modernisation. Our policy of 50:50 shortlists and the aim of equal representation in Parliament remain.
We are not alone. Women all over the world are campaigning for positive action to ensure more equal representation of women—not because women are less able and need special treatment, but because the pace of cultural change is too slow to remove the structural and institutional barriers to proper political power sharing. Where positive action has been applied over the years in other European countries, Governments have not become ineffective nor their Parliaments dysfunctional. The Inter-Parliamentary Union's world league for women's parliamentary representation is topped by seven European countries: Sweden leads with more than 40 per cent. and Germany is seventh with more than 30 per cent.—but the United Kingdom, with 18 per cent., comes in 31st.
My Bill lays down no prescription, but it would remove any excuses. Labour Members know that positive action works and we need more of it. Tory spokesmen oppose such actions, calling them patronising and likely to produce second-rate candidates. I wonder how many Tory hon. Gentlemen feel that they were patronised or are second-rate Members because they were shielded from
884
female competition by all-male shortlists. True equality would mean having women as well as men with the whole range of talents, from brilliance to mediocrity, as Members of Parliament.
Others hold that it is impossible for women with children to cope in this place. I ask, what about the men with children? The nonsense of last Tuesday's all-night sitting is an argument for timetabling all legislation, not for excluding women Members.
Finally, there is the argument that society is changing, and progress will come naturally. I am happy to concede that that can happen, but in 1979 the Tory party returned eight women MPs; 18 years later, it returned 13. Some progress there! Seriously, how long do women have to wait? Even if the rate of increase achieved on the back of Labour's all-woman shortlist was maintained, it would take another 30 years to bring about parity in the House. At the Tory rate, it would take more than a century.
Tomorrow, we will join women throughout the world to celebrate international women's day. I believe that it is the responsibility of this Parliament to acknowledge our democratic deficit and to remove any obstacles to the achievement of equal representation.
4.41 pm
Miss Anne McIntosh: I did not intend to speak, but I feel that I must correct the impressions with which the House has been left.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock) on presenting what would be a wide-ranging and—in her view alone, probably—welcome addition to the statute book, but I feel that I must oppose it and provide the House with the information with which it can make up its mind. I should point out, for instance, that the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 and the Equal Pay Act 1970, which came into force in 1975, derive their power from article 119 of the treaty of Rome.
The original all-party list of single-sex candidates submitted for selection, consisting only of women, was deemed out of order for a simple reason: "equal opportunities" means not just equal opportunities for candidates, but a free choice for the selection committee from both men and women. I think the hon. Lady will find that, according to leading opinion, the regular issuing of either all-male or all-female lists would be deemed illegal under the Sex Discrimination Act and, indeed, article 119.
I am extremely proud to have been elected as one of 14 lady Conservative Members, who, I believe, were selected fairly and on merit. Let me place on the record that it was indeed the Conservative party which, in 1979, made legal history by electing the first woman party leader and, indeed, Prime Minister. I know that it is disappointing that the hon. Lady's party has not seen fit to follow our proud record.
The hon. Lady mentioned all-night sittings. As a former Minister, she will appreciate that it is the duty of Governments to try to push through their business programme, and the duty of Oppositions to frustrate that programme with whatever procedures are at their disposal—especially in the face of a rather larger Government majority than one would like.

885
I do not want to detain the House by forcing a Division, but I think it important to realise that "equal opportunities" means not just the ability of candidates of both genders to apply to be placed on a list, but the ability of a selection committee to choose from both males and females.
Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 23 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business), and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Joan Ruddock, Jackie Ballard, Mr. Malcolm Chisholm, Lorna Fitzsimons, Barbara Follett, Dr. Ian Gibson, Ms Harriet Harman, Dr. Evan Harris, Dr. Ashok Kumar, Fiona Mactaggart, Ms Julie Morgan and Dr. Jenny Tonge.

SEX DISCRIMINATION (AMENDMENT) (No. 2)
Joan Ruddock accordingly presented a Bill to amend the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 with respect to the selection by political parties of candidates for parliamentary or local government elections: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 14th April, and to be printed [Bill 82].
Orders of the Day

  Criminal Justice (Mode of Trial) (No. 2) Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): I should inform the House that Madam Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews).
  4.46 pm
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  The Bill is part of the Government's programme to modernise the criminal justice system and to improve public confidence in it. Its purpose is to make the system more responsive to the needs of victims, witnesses and the public at large—and defendants. The proposal has been considered extensively in the past seven years. In 1993, it received the unanimous backing of the royal commission on criminal justice.
  Today, it enjoys the active endorsement of the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Bingham, and of the vast majority of the High Court Bench of nearly 100 senior judges; of the Magistrates Association, representing 30,000 justices of the peace; and of all three police associations, representing more than 125,000 police officers, each of whom has to deal every day with the victims of crime and its perpetrators and who know that justice is not served, either for victim or defendant, by an antiquated and time-wasting procedure, which the Bill seeks to remedy.
  The Bill is justified in its own right, but it will produce considerable savings of more than £120 million a year, representing resources which could, and will, be better used elsewhere in the criminal justice system.
  I understand the concerns in the House about the effect of the Bill on the principles of trial by jury. I understand those concerns not least because, when I first considered the matter, my instincts were similar; I acknowledge that. However, as the House knows, I have changed my mind—there has never been any dubiety about that—because the more I have examined the arguments in favour of the present arrangements, the weaker they appeared to be and the stronger the case for reform.
  In no sense does the Bill undermine the availability of trial by jury for appropriate offences. What it does is to ensure that there is a fairer and more objective basis than the decision of the accused for determining which cases involving the middle range of offences should be so tried. In doing so, we bring ourselves into line with the better practice of almost all comparable jurisdictions and come closer to the practice in Scotland.
  Often, Scotland is, rightly, held out to be a nation with a more effective criminal justice system than ours. There, the decision on mode of trial has never rested with the defendant, but is made by the prosecutor. The Bill provides greater safeguards for the defendant by having the initial decision made by magistrates and the final one, on appeal, by an experienced Crown court judge.
  Mr. Gerald Bermingham: Perhaps my right hon. Friend could assist me a little in that respect. Although I understand the Scottish example, if the Bill became law, unusually we would have trial by magistrate and perhaps sentence by judge, whereas in Scotland there is trial by magistrate and sentence by magistrate. Will he not think again? If the matter is to be tried in the magistrates court—he knows of the extensive correspondence that I have had with him and of my views on the matter—sentencing should be in the same court.
  Mr. Straw: I understand my hon. Friend's point, which he and I have discussed at length. It would be better explored in Committee. However, I tell him now that one of the reasons why, in Scotland, it is possible to have a system in which the judge in the sheriff-only court has limited powers to sentence—three months in the case of a first offence; six months in the case of a second or subsequent offence—is that the prosecutor has access to a full record of an accused's previous convictions and makes that choice. Our system is different, but the fundamental similarity remains. Once the Bill becomes law, in neither system will the defendant have the right to choose his or her forum.
  Mr. Robert Marshall-Andrews: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Straw: I shall give way in a moment to my hon. and learned Friend.
  I remind the House that, in another place, my hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate, Lord Hardie, while acknowledging that he was from what he called a "foreign jurisdiction", said:
  What is essential in any system is that the various interests are balanced: that society's interests, as represented by victims and witnesses, are balanced against the interests of the accused. But what must be ensured is that the accused is protected from the effect of arbitrary decisions. Who better to perform such a task than an independent judiciary?—[Official Report, House of Lords, 20 January 2000; Vol. 608, c. 1287.]
  I am not aware of any campaign north of the border to change the system, which is widely held to work well. Moreover, it is held to work well not simply because of the limits on sentencing power.
  Mr. Marshall-Andrews: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in the Scottish system, there is a three-months' sentence limitation for sheriffs or magistrates sitting without juries? In those circumstances, any prosecutor making the decision on where any case warranting more than three months' imprisonment should be heard must elect for jury trial. Is my right hon. Friend not aware that, in our jurisdiction, in any event, all three-months cases are summary-only cases? Therefore, the parallel with the Scottish system is completely false.
  Mr. Straw: That is not the view taken by experienced Scottish lawyers and jurists, who see very sharp similarities in the way in which the Scottish system and our system operate. If my hon. and learned Friend were proposing that the prosecutor should determine trial venue in every case, rather than what we are proposing—which would provide much greater safeguards for the accused, and entail the magistrates court making the initial
  888
  decision, with a subsequent appeal to an experienced Crown court judge—he would have some argument in his favour. However, I do not accept that argument.
  It has long been a feature of our system that magistrates have a power to commit a case for sentence. There is nothing objectionable about that. However, as my hon. and learned Friend will know—as he has studied with some care the small print of my Bill—if the magistrates come to the view that the punishment that a magistrates court would have to impose for an offence would be inadequate, clause 1 requires them in any event to commit the case to the Crown court.
  Dr. Lynne Jones: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Straw: I should like to make some progress, and then of course I shall give way to my hon. Friend.
  Most either-way cases heard in the Crown court are there because of a decision by magistrates. Interestingly, defendants who want to be tried by magistrates have no choice if the magistrates direct a Crown court trial. Similarly, the Government do not believe that it is right for the final decision on Crown court trial to be a matter for the defendant's personal choice. Both the royal commission and the Narey review found that too many defendants have been working the system and choosing jury trial purely to delay proceedings.
  One very experienced magistrate, Rosemary Thompson, who is well known to hon. Members on both sides of the House and is a former chair of the Magistrates Association, told Narey, at the time of his review, that
  in considering elections for trial I cannot remember the last time someone elected for reasons of reputation. Inevitably, the ones who elect are experienced defendants, the ones who know how to play the system.
  Rosemary Thompson has recently confirmed:
  Abuse is still rampant and there is still a pressing need for reform. Nothing has changed since the publication of the Narey report.
  It cannot be right that we continue to allow repeat offenders with strings of previous convictions to demand full Crown court trials for trivial offences that can and should be heard in magistrates courts. As David Phillips, chief constable of Kent, said recently in support of our proposals:
  In the end it is plain daft to allow a persistent criminal charged with a minor theft to invoke the full panoply of a criminal trial with solicitors, barristers, court officials, jurors and judges at massive public expense.
  The majority of those who opt for jury trial plead guilty at the door of the Crown court, but only after greater inconvenience and worry to victims and witnesses and considerable extra cost. Most people rightly regard that as a manipulation of the criminal justice system. The Bill will end it. If defendants are convicted at the Crown court, their success in delaying proceedings brings them not the lighter sentence that they might have hoped for, but a higher one. They lose their sentence discount and may spend longer on remand.
  The evidence presented to the royal commission suggested that one of the key reasons why defendants chose trial by jury was that they thought that they would get a lesser sentence at the Crown court than they would at the magistrates court. Anyone with any experience of working in the two knows what the data show

  889
  overwhelmingly: those who opt for a Crown court trial, even if they plead guilty at the door of the court, as many do, will justifiably receive a longer sentence because they have not pleaded guilty timeously.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: The Home Secretary is being selective in the evidence that he chooses to support his case. Two reports commissioned by the Home Office in the past 10 years have shown overwhelmingly that defendants who elect to go to the Crown court do so for reasons other than simply to stay out on remand or because they think that they can spin out the case. A defendant in the Crown court gets sight of all the evidence against them. That is not available in the magistrates court. They could also be given advice by lawyers to plead guilty on the basis of later evidence at the doors of the Crown court. Why cannot we have an objective assessment of the case for law reform, saving costs and improving justice as a whole rather than taking one issue, which the Home Secretary accepts is controversial, against—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that perhaps his interventions should be brief.
  Mr. Straw: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's reading of the data. It is preposterous to suggest, particularly these days with the huge cost of criminal legal aid, that defendants in magistrates courts are denied the availability of legal advice.
  Mr. Hughes: I did not say that.
  Mr. Straw: That is the implication of what the hon. Gentleman said. He said that they were denied advice from lawyers and that they might get that advice at the Crown court. I heard him say that, but it is not the case. The excellent Library briefing sets out the data, as have we. The figures do not show any evidence of injustice being perpetrated by the way in which magistrates try cases.
  The hon. Gentleman also made points relating to the Auld review, which is currently taking place. The Bar Council and some of my hon. Friends have asked why the issue cannot be dealt with by that review, which is considering the future of the criminal justice system in the round. Our proposal has been considered extensively, not just by a very distinguished judge of the Court of Appeal but by a royal commission set up by the previous Administration. Their unanimous judgment was in favour of the change, but without the safeguards that we are proposing.
  I took what the Bar Council said to mean that it would abandon its opposition if Lord Justice Auld approved of the change. If that is not the correct inference to draw, the idea is merely a tactic for procrastination. We have already had the opinion of the senior judiciary on the merits of the proposals, if that is all that the Bar Council is waiting for. The Lord Chief Justice made a powerful speech on 20 January in which he came down wholly in favour of the change. He said on the record that he had canvassed the opinion of all the senior High court judges—more than 100—and that all bar a tiny handful were emphatically in favour of the change. The Bar Council has its response already.
  Mr. Humfrey Malins: The Home Secretary's point about defendants playing the system to
  890
  get to the Crown court may have been a good one some years ago, but it is now grossly exaggerated as it hardly happens at all—not least because of the introduction of plea-before-venue, coupled with full credit for early guilty pleas. Does the Home Secretary accept that there is now very little milking of the system?
  Mr. Straw: If I did, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I would not have gone to considerable effort to bring this Bill before the House, and I have applied myself to the evidence. If that were the case, does the hon. Gentleman think that I would be bothering to go through this exercise? What he says is not the case.
  Sir Nicholas Lyell: Will the Home Secretary re-read what the Lord Chief Justice said, and ask himself whether he has overstated the case a little? The Lord Chief Justice said that he had stood up at a meeting of 100 judges and asked if anybody disagreed. Earlier at the meeting—at which Mr. Justice Mitchell was endorsed—he had said that the proposed change could be supported, but only if the magistrates' decisions on jurisdiction were subject to appeal to a circuit judge. That was not then part of the proposal, but has been accepted subsequently by the Government. Is not it fair to say that the judges felt reluctant to stand out against the elected Government, but that they hardly showed the wholehearted support that the Home Secretary suggests?
  Mr. Straw: Perhaps the record should be sent for, for the greater elucidation of Opposition Members, but I do not think that what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has just said can be remotely justified. The speech by Lord Bingham of Cornhill was unequivocally 100 per cent. in favour of the change—although with the change that he had proposed of a right of appeal to a Crown court, which we have accepted and which was in the original Bill.
  The noble Lord Bingham made it clear that almost every single judge was in favour. He invited the 100 judges present at the meeting to write to him if they dissented, as he said that one or two of them—despite their lengthy experience at the Bar and on the bench—may have been shy in coming forward. One wrote, and a further judge indicated dissent orally. However, there seems to be considerable unanimity of opinion on this matter.
  Mr. Douglas Hogg: The Home Secretary should be cautious about relying on the support of the judiciary. I exempt the Lord Chief Justice from what I am about to say, but is not it correct that those of us who practise at the criminal Bar know full well that many members of the judiciary—both lay and professional—develop a predisposition in favour of the prosecution because they are exposed to crime over many years? It is precisely for that reason that many of us want to retain the jury system, and precisely for that reason that the Home Secretary should be cautious about relying on the views of the judiciary.
  Mr. Straw: That was an extraordinarily ill-judged and intemperate attack on the quality of our judiciary by the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I am sure that it was not a contempt of court, but it was getting on for that. I simply do not accept what he says and, later, I shall

  891
  give figures which show without any doubt that the magistrates—whom he is suggesting are hard-boiled and willing to accept prosecution evidence, however poor—simply do not operate in that way.
  Mr. Marshall-Andrews: In dealing with the so-called idea that people are playing the system, is my right hon. Friend aware that Michael Zander's report to the royal commission suggested that the overwhelming reason why people changed their plea was that in 50 per cent. of cases the charges were reduced, because of the well-known practice of overcharging defendants, especially black defendants, in magistrates courts?
  While I am on my feet, my second point is that my right hon. Friend says that he is applying the Runciman royal commission, but he is not, because Runciman said that we should allow magistrates the powers only if they deliberately considered, as a statutory point, the reputation of the defendant. That is exactly what—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is far too long a contribution.
  Mr. Straw: I understand my hon. and learned Friend's point about reputation and livelihood, but he will know that much concern was expressed in the Chamber and in the other place about the inclusion of the criteria on reputation and livelihood, on the ground that that could unfairly discriminate against black and Asian defendants and those of what were regarded as a lower social class. I have responded to that concern by including in the Bill criteria relating to the seriousness and complexity of the offence, and to the sentencing power of the court, but not to reputation and livelihood.
  My hon. and learned Friend will be able to make his point in greater detail in Committee but, if he is seeking to make a strong case, I advise him not to quote Professor Michael Zander in his favour, because both in his report to the royal commission and in an article in The Guardian on 25 May last year he came out strongly in favour of the basic principle of the Bill. He said:
  Opponents of the reform pray in aid Magna Carta, ignoring the fact that the defendant's right to choose jury trial dates only from 1855. It is true that juries acquit more often than magistrates, but in the Royal Commission's view it is as wrong to give the defendant the right to insist on the level of court that will give him a better chance of acquittal as it would be to give him the choice of a more lenient judge.
  Mr. James Clappison: Does not the real unfairness of the Bill rest in who will be allowed to have a trial by jury? Will not it benefit the rich, the powerful and the famous who will have the right to trial by jury? Will the Home Secretary answer the questions he himself asked a few years ago:
  If … a Member of Parliament or even a Secretary of State were charged with an offence of dishonesty, would they not insist on being tried by a jury? If that is the case, why should others be denied that right of election?—[Official Report, 27 February 1997; Vol. 291, c. 434.]
  Mr. Straw: I have answered those questions, because I have said that I have changed my mind on that point. Moreover, the more I thought about it, the more I accepted
  892
  that it was wrong to have a system in which one of the criteria was tipped in favour of the people whom I mentioned. We have established criteria that are related to the seriousness and complexity of the offence and the sentencing power of the court. However, I said only yesterday that I have never brought a Bill before the House that has not been improved as a result of debate in the House, and that may well be the case for this Bill. The purpose of debate is to consider propositions from Government and, we trust, to improve them.
  The provisions in the Bill are likely to prove significantly fairer. I repeat that we have strengthened the safeguards proposed by the royal commission to include in the Bill an interlocutory right of appeal to a Crown court judge against a decision of the magistrates to refuse to transfer jurisdiction.
  Dr. Lynne Jones: Will my right hon. Friend explain how the measures will assist victims of crime, when he is introducing a right of appeal to the Crown court and when the magistrates courts will cause a longer delay before disposal of the case in the Crown court? Does he not realise that when the Government introduce such measures, that is precisely why so many Labour party members and supporters feel alienated?
  Mr. Straw: I do not know to whom my hon. Friend talks but, in my constituency, which includes a lively Labour party, I have found no significant opposition to the changes. In the frequent open-air meetings that I hold in the centre of Blackburn in King William street, all the comment about the proposals has been in favour of the changes. People know that the reality is very different from what is being advanced by some hon. Members here today.
  Before I go into the details of the Bill, two fundamental matters must be addressed. The first concerns the categorisation of offences. In England and Wales, the venue for a criminal trial is determined by the classification of offence that is charged. In the first category are the most serious offences—such as murder, rape, robbery, wounding or causing grievous bodily harm with intent—which can and should be tried only in the Crown court.
  Then there are offences that can be tried either in the magistrates courts or the Crown court. The most common cases are stealing from shops and stalls, absconding from bail, and assaults occasioning actual bodily harm. In 1998, the numbers of prosecutions for each of those offences amounted to more than 75,000, 45,000 and 38,000 respectively. Where the offence is serious, and the magistrate's sentencing power is too limited, magistrates themselves may commit the case to the Crown court.
  That very important point has not been fully understood outside the House. Of the total number of cases that went for trial at the Crown court last year, 45,000 were directed for trial there by magistrates. As I have already said, quite a lot of defendants want to be tried by magistrates, but in such cases they have no choice: if the magistrate so decides, the case must be tried in the Crown court.
  In the common types of case that I have described, the defendant must give his or her consent to be tried by the magistrates—even if the circumstances of the case are very petty. Last year, 19,000 elected to do so.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Dr. Jones) will be interested to know that does not mean that there is less delay when there is election for

  893
  trial. There is always greater delay than when the trial is held in the magistrates court, as is shown clearly in the data provided by the House of Commons Library.
  Finally, there are summary-only offences which can only be tried by the magistrates. These include offences such as minor assaults. This categorisation is intended to represent a hierarchy based on the seriousness of the offence. In practice, however, that is often not the case. As the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Bingham, has pointed out, a number of offences can be tried only in the magistrates courts, where a conviction would—and does—have serious consequences for the defendant that go far beyond the formal punishment imposed by the court.
  I shall give the House an entirely hypothetical example. Let us imagine that a Member of Parliament gets drunk, takes a car without consent and then assaults the police officer who apprehends him. If that hon. Member were convicted on those three sets of charges, I suggest that there would be a serious question mark over his or her career. Yet Parliament has decided that the serious offences involved—of taking a vehicle without the owner's consent, of assault on a police officer, and of drink-driving—are ones that only magistrates can try. There is no right of election for jury trial and, as far as I am aware, there is general confidence in magistrates' ability to try such offences.
  The second, general, observation that I want to make concerns the position of magistrates in our criminal justice system. I can tell Opposition Members—especially my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews)—that the logical consequence of much of the opposition to the proposal in the Bill is to deny the competence and capacity of magistrates to arbitrate on any judicial matter. That is odd, as about 97 per cent. of all criminal cases in England and Wales—many of them with very severe consequences for defendants—are already tried by magistrates.
  Magistrates routinely handle decisions relating to defendants' bail, matters of guilt or innocence, and appropriate sentencing following conviction. Many of those decisions have a far more serious effect upon the defendant's liberty than the decision relating to the mode of trial. In the debate in another place, the Lord Chief Justice said about magistrates that
  it seems to me strange to baulk at entrusting to them the power to decide whether, subject to appeal, a case is more fitted for summary trial or trial by a judge and jury.—[0fficial Report, House of Lords, 20 January 2000; Vol. 608, c. 1253.]
  Mr. Marshall-Andrews: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Straw: Not yet. All the evidence shows that magistrates courts conduct themselves fairly in dispensing justice. Each year, our magistrates conduct 70,000 contested trials. That is two and a half times the number conducted in the Crown court, yet the Criminal Cases Review Commission has received remarkably few complaints about summary conviction and has referred only one case involving the magistrates courts to the Court of Appeal.
  I suggest that that is partly because there is an unfettered right of appeal following conviction by the magistrates before a judge sitting with two justices,
  894
  whereas there is no automatic right of appeal following conviction in the Crown court. Contrary to all suggestions, including that of the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), when magistrates hear trials, they acquit in 33 per cent. of cases. Of those cases that go for appeal—one in seven are subject to appeal to a Crown court judge and two magistrates—one third are successful.
  Let me come on to an important issue on which I have thought long and hard—whether the Bill would disproportionately affect black defendants. It is said that they elect for jury trial because they believe that they will not receive a fair trail in the magistrates courts. I have considered the issue seriously. Lawyers, above all, need to weigh the evidence, and the evidence suggests that any such belief is entirely misplaced. Recently published Home Office data show a higher conviction rate for white defendants than for black or Asian defendants in the magistrates court.
  That finding is backed by another recent study, showing that in both the magistrates court and the Crown court, black and Asian defendants were less likely than white defendants to be convicted after contested trials. At both courts—although it is not possible to make direct comparisons between the two conviction rates—black defendants were 6 to 7 percentage points less likely to be convicted than white defendants. There is also a strong similarity between acquittal rates in magistrates courts and in the Crown court for contested either-way cases when account is taken of the differences in seriousness and complexity in Crown court cases.
  Mr. Marshall-Andrews: Does not my right hon. Friend understand that these statistics about the conviction rate of black defendants in magistrates courts come as no surprise to civil libertarians? They vindicate the view, and the resource material that is available, that black defendants are regularly and repeatedly overcharged in magistrates courts. Regularly and repeatedly overcharging people means that it is highly likely that they will have a greater incidence of acquittal. Indeed, it vindicates precisely that view.
  Mr. Straw: I do not accept my hon. and learned Friend's implication with regard to these figures. I believe that, if they are properly considered, it is impossible to follow his line of argument. He makes one fundamental error in talking about the offences charged at the magistrates court. The magistrates court does not charge offences. My hon. and learned Friend should know better than anyone that the police charge offences. That is of fundamental importance.
  There is no evidence to suggest that black defendants, even if they are overcharged by the police, are treated in a discriminatory way by the magistrates court as opposed to the Crown court. In both the magistrates court and the Crown court, there is a higher acquittal rate for black defendants over white defendants.
  Mr. Marshall-Andrews indicated dissent.
  Mr. Straw: There is no point in my hon. and learned Friend shaking his head. That is a fact, and it is in the House of Commons Library data. There is no difference at all there.

  895
  Let me deal with whether the changes might adversely affect mentally disordered defendants. Interestingly, the Royal College of Psychiatrists offered us a view about this. It said:
  We do not envisage that the proposed changes will affect access of needy individuals to psychiatric assessment, defence, mitigation or treatment. It is even possible that by speeding up the process, some mentally disordered defendants may benefit.
  The Bill amends the relevant provisions of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980, omitting the requirement for the defendant's consent to summary trial in either-way cases. I have already explained about the changes that we have made in respect of livelihood and reputation. I believe that the safeguards that we have introduced will make a significant difference to the operation of the criminal justice system and that they maintain the right to jury trial for appropriate offences. At the same time, the system will not be brought into disrepute by cases such as the one that I am about to quote. Far from being a dim and distant case given in evidence to the royal commission six or seven years ago, it happened only last month.
  A 26-year-old man with 15 previous convictions covering a total of 63 offences, including 36 offences of theft, elected trial for the offence of stealing one bottle of champagne. I ask the House whether it is sensible to have a system that allows that kind of election for trial.
  Mr. Hogg: What if you were charged?
  Mr. Straw: If I were charged with that offence, I should be happy to go before the magistrates because I happen to believe that they are capable of conducting fair trials. If I were convicted, I should have a right—
  Sir Nicholas Lyell: Will the Home Secretary give way?
  Mr. Straw: No. If I were convicted—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We cannot have shouting across the Chamber.
  Mr. Straw: I have given way a great deal but will give way shortly to the former Attorney-General, the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell), before I make some progress.
  The seriousness of the offence and the nature of the case are the criteria that should, in our judgment, determine whether a case is dealt with by the Crown court or the magistrates. We can discuss that point in Committee, but I believe that our proposals will fairly and sensibly achieve that end. We have also strengthened the safeguards, moving away from those proposed by the royal commission, by providing for an interlocutory right of appeal. The appeal would go to the Crown court, and the procedure would be fast and efficient with most cases determined within 48 hours. That will not hold up progress with the case in the magistrates court.
  We have sought to improve the safeguards relating to appeals by providing that magistrates would be required to give reasons for their decisions. The Lord Chief Justice
  896
  has suggested that appeals on mode of trial should be heard by the resident judge or by a judge nominated by the presiding judges of the circuit. The Government agree that that would help to ensure public confidence in high standards of decision making. Appropriate arrangements will be made by way of a practice direction.
  I shall give way—for the last time—to the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire.
  Sir Nicholas Lyell: I am most grateful to the Home Secretary. Did he not become carried away by his own rhetoric in his example of his being accused of stealing a bottle of champagne? Does he recognise that those of us on the other side of the argument fully respect the way in which magistrates conduct themselves in the great majority of their hearings? However, the logic of the Home Secretary's argument is that, because magistrates generally provide a fair trial, the right to trial by jury can be largely dispensed with.
  Mr. Straw: I am afraid that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is being carried away by his own rhetoric, but it is not very good. In any system of courts in which a hierarchy exists, there must be some criteria by which to select which cases go to the higher and lower courts. One criterion is sentencing power, but another is the seriousness and complexity of cases. Of course, some cases are serious in themselves, and serious enough to trigger the criterion of sentencing power. In addition, other less serious cases may have complicated evidence that makes it appropriate to take them before the Crown court.
  Mr. Dominic Grieve: Will the Home Secretary give way?
  Mr. Straw: No, I have given way a great deal.
  The logical conclusion of the argument being presented against us is that magistrates courts should never try cases—except, perhaps, for failure to pay a parking ticket. It is being continuously insinuated that magistrates are unfair. That was the clear implication of what was said by the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham.
  Mr. Hogg rose—
  Mr. Straw: As I have referred to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, I suppose I must give way.
  Mr. Hogg: I am most grateful. What I actually said applied to both the lay and professional judiciary. It was that there is a predisposition on the part of the judiciary—lay and professional—to favour the prosecution.
  Mr. Straw: The right hon. and learned Gentleman seems to suggest that one cannot get a fair trial anywhere.
  Mr. Hogg: From a jury.
  Mr. Straw: I know. But the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows that it is not unheard of—indeed, it happens often—for a judge with a fairly clear view of a defendant's guilt or innocence to suggest cleverly that a jury might come to one conclusion rather than another.

  897
  I am only too well aware—not least from the debate—that our proposal, modest though it is, has aroused some controversy, in the House, in the other place and outside. I have taken careful note of that, and have sought to respond by strengthening the Bill's safeguards and amending the criteria to make them as objective as possible.
  In putting the Bill before the House, I draw some comfort from the fact that at almost every point that a Home Secretary has sought sensibly to modernise our system of jury trials, he has been met with similarly vocal opposition. Yet once the measure has gone through, the opposition has faded, as the sense of the measure has been appreciated.
  In 1967, Roy Jenkins proposed a change to the system of jury trial far more fundamental than this one: to change the requirement of a unanimous verdict to that which the European Union now likes to call a qualified majority. The proposal was met with howls from all sides. I give the House a flavour of the reaction by quoting the then Labour Member for Oldham, West, Mr. Leslie Hale, who said of the proposal made by the noble and Liberal Lord Jenkins—then the Home Secretary—that
  never before in the history of Parliament has there been a provision undermining the constitution of the nation, the liberties of the people and a system of justice that, with all its faults, is the envy of the world, on less evidence, with less consideration, and with a more complete absence of reasoning in its support.—[Official Report, 26 April 1967; Vol. 745, c. 1744.]
  He was joined by many Members on both sides of the House. His comments could even have been written by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Medway, who has just come back into the Chamber. I am glad that he has returned.
  The measure had a bumpy ride, but it passed. None of the consequences foretold by its opponents came about. Even a year later, no one suggested that the clock should go back.
  The story is remarkably similar for the proposals made in 1988 by Douglas Hurd. He proposed an end to the right of pre-emptory challenge to jurors; that a prosecution might appeal against unduly lenient sentences; and a reclassification of offences, such as drink-driving and taking a vehicle without consent, to summary only.
  The whole of the then Opposition—myself included—trooped into the Lobby against that Bill on an amendment tabled by my now noble Friend, Lord Hattersley, claiming that it
  would result in a substantial reduction in civil liberties.—[Official Report, 18 January 1988; Vol. 125, c. 691.]
  Notwithstanding our ritual opposition, the Bill passed. The claim that those changes would substantially reduce civil liberties disappeared like snow in the sunshine, never to appear again.
  Mr. Edward Garnier: Is not the difference between the witty examples offered by the Home Secretary and the measure the fact that those examples were of universal application, but his Bill is discriminatory?
  Mr. Straw: I do not begin to follow the hon. and learned Gentleman's comment. The examples I gave were applicable to the criminal justice system; so is the Bill.
  898
  I understand that the hon. and learned Gentleman, rather than the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), will open the debate for the Opposition. I suggest that he should argue why it is wrong for there to be objective criteria for mode of trial—such as the royal commission suggested and the previous Government came close to agreeing.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Straw: Many people want to speak and there is a 15-minute limit on the speeches of Back Benchers. I have a few more comments to make.
  One of the most powerful arguments made in 1988 came not from the Labour Benches, but from those of the Liberal Democrats—from Alex Carlile. It is interesting that all three of the Members to whose comments I have referred were elevated to another place on the strength of their opposition to those changes. Alex Carlile protested loud and long against the reclassification of criminal damage and common assault offences as summary only. He made the point that there would be no right of election to trial and no right of trial at a Crown court. He said that a defendant in those circumstances—charged with criminal damage and common assault offences—
  may well be in jeopardy of losing his job, and he will certainly be in jeopardy of losing his reputation and the respect of all around him. That is much too serious a case for the defendant to be deprived of his right to trial by jury.—[Official Report, 18 January 1988; Vol. 125, c. 719.]
  That was in 1998. I searched in vain—I made the search myself, to avoid any accidents—in the 1992 Liberal Democrat manifesto for any proposal to restore those offences to the either-way classification. The manifesto was silent. Those changes—
  Mr. Simon Hughes rose—
  Mr. Straw: There is no need for the hon. Gentleman to intervene. That is the truth. I warrant that the same will be so of the opposition to this Bill.
  The proposal was recommended not only by the 1993 royal commission but by the Narey report on speeding up the criminal justice system, which the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), the then Home Secretary, commended to the House on 27 February 1997, when I famously expressed my opposition to it. I have made no bones about that—how could I? I have told the House that I have changed my mind. I do not often do that, but every so often one is entitled to do so on the basis of the evidence.
  It is true that the right hon. and learned Gentleman never quite committed himself to legislating on that proposal, but he did everything but. When the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway), who until last month was the deputy to the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald, asked about either-way trials and asked
  if we can trust magistrates to decide guilt or innocence, why cannot we trust magistrates to decide whether cases are sufficiently serious to be tried by a jury in a Crown court?—[Official Report, 27 February 1997; Vol. 291, c. 438.],
  the right hon. and learned Gentleman greeted his remarks with approbation.

  899
  My guess—it can only be a guess—is that had the previous Administration been re-elected in 1997, they would have gone ahead with the proposal, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman hinted heavily that he would. No doubt, if the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald were to speak this afternoon, she would say that this was yet another issue on which she was profoundly opposed to her then boss, although not sufficiently opposed to him to resign. She now says that it is a matter of fundamental principle, but not such a matter of fundamental principle that she will make a speech about it.
  The Bill represents a modest and important modernisation of our criminal justice system and will speed up justice in the interests of victims, witnesses and defendants alike.
  Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Straw: I shall give way, as I always do, to my hon. Friend.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: It is no secret that I am not a lawyer. I have listened carefully to my right hon. Friend, who was doing quite well until he started quoting Lord Jenkins.
  I want to ask my right hon. Friend a simple question, because I need to be convinced. Is the change being pushed through because it will save money, or is it being pushed through because it will improve the law? I am really not clear.
  Mr. Straw: The Bill is being put through the House because it will improve the administration of the law; it will also save money. That is the answer.
  Mr. John Burnett: Will the Home Secretary give way on that point?
  Mr. Straw: No, I am sorry. I must finish my speech. As the House knows, I always give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), and I explained the special circumstances for that yesterday.
  As I said, the Bill represents a modest and important modernisation of our criminal justice system and will speed up justice in the interests of victims, witnesses and defendants alike. It commands the widespread report of practitioners. As the Lord Chief Justice said in Committee in the other place
  almost the whole High Court Bench … nearly 100 judges, including some former circuit judges
  supported the proposal. He added that
  there seems to be a considerable unanimity of opinion on the topic.
  He hoped that the Committee would attach
  some weight to a body of people with a close and current knowledge of the administration of criminal justice who are—
  I point this out particularly to my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich—
  to the last man and woman, very strong supporters of jury trial in appropriate cases. There have been many occasions in the past when the judges have been united or almost so in resisting change. It is
  900
  difficult to think of cases where they have been as much of one mind in approving it.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 20 January 2000; Vol. 608, c. 1255.]
  The Lord Chief Justice said that about this Bill.
  We have made improvements on the recommendations originally made by the royal commission and the Narey review. We have listened to, and acted on, concerns expressed in the other place and elsewhere. The Bill threatens no hallowed rights. It is just, fair and proportionate. It will enhance public confidence in the criminal justice system, and I commend it to the House.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before I call the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier), I point out that Madam Speaker has said that there will be a 15-minute limit on the speeches of Back Benchers.
  5.34 pm
  Mr. Edward Garnier: I think that the Attorney-General made a better and shorter speech in the other place.
  I declare an interest as a practising member of the Bar who appears before juries in defamation and other civil trials but not—or at least not for the past 20 years—before juries in criminal cases save when sitting as an assistant recorder of the Crown court. My experience as an assistant recorder and as an advocate in civil and criminal cases tells me that we tamper with the current system of jury election in either-way cases not just at our own peril as legislators, but at the peril of the system of justice itself and the public's confidence in it.
  I make it clear at the outset that my arguments and those of my party against the Bill do not depend on attacking or denigrating the lay magistracy. Magistrates do a magnificent job for no pay and mean expenses. Over 90 per cent. of all cases that fall within the criminal or quasi-criminal jurisdiction go before magistrates. That includes parking and motoring matters, licensing applications and cases that we would all recognise as criminal. Magistrates form a vital part of the jigsaw of local justice, which Conservative Members want to strengthen and enhance. Our argument is not that magistrates cannot do the job that the Bill gives them, but that, as a matter of justice and fairness, they should not have to.
  The Home Secretary has had a Bill similar to this one defeated in another place. It was defeated not by the much maligned but in-built majority of the hereditary Conservative peerage, but by an alliance of peers who, in the Prime Minister's reformed House of Lords, take the Whip not only of my party but of the Liberal Democrats and the Labour party. They were not alone in their disapproval of the first Bill, because they were joined by Cross Benchers and bishops.
  The Government were defeated by 96 votes overall, but it should not be forgotten that the Prime Minister, who created the new House and who has created more life peers in his short period of office than any other Prime Minister in a comparable or even longer period, was defeated by a majority of 50, if one considers only the votes of life peers. That was a vote of the new House, whose decisions the noble Baroness Jay—new Labour's equivalent of a hereditary peer—said would command the respect of her party and Parliament as a whole.

  901
  If the Government had half an ounce of the common sense of their Members and half an ounce of real respect for their new House of Lords, they would pay attention to the vote in the other place on 20 January. It is not as though they were taken by surprise—or was Homer nodding or too arrogant to pay heed to the reasoned arguments deployed against the first Bill on Second Reading last December? Alternatively, are the Government now too stubborn to pay any heed to the lessons that they have been taught about the futility and sheer stupidity of trying to ram the new Bill through the House tonight?
  If the Home Secretary were bad or stupid, or both, I could perhaps forgive him the Bill, but he is neither: quite the contrary. Yet he has allowed himself, either on his own initiative or perhaps at the behest of others, to introduce a bad and stupid Bill. It is fair to point out, and I do so willingly, that all Cabinet Ministers work hard and they work long hours. Every Cabinet post is a strenuous job, particularly for the Minister who is in office for reasons that have more to do with balancing the various interests of the Labour party than with intellectual or political ability.
  I readily concede that the Home Secretary is a hard-working Minister who was appointed because he has the abilities to make a good Home Secretary. He works harder than most, if not all, of his Cabinet colleagues, and I will not permit the mauling that he received at the hands of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) in the debate on the dismissal of Derek Lewis in the previous Parliament to detract from my high opinion of him.
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Garnier: The hon. Gentleman might let me carry on for a moment while I am expressing my high opinion of the Home Secretary.
  The Home Secretary has an enormous legislative programme in this Session, and he has had a great deal else to deal with on top of that, including the welfare and accommodation arrangements of General Pinochet during his stay in this country, discussions with the Foreign Secretary on how best to ensure that the President of China was suitably cared for by the police during his stay here, and the welfare and accommodation arrangements for the passengers and crew of the hijacked Afghan aeroplane.
  Each of those matters will have kept the Home Secretary busy polishing his periscope and adjusting his wing mirrors to see where the next disaster was coming from, because he knew that no sooner had he dealt, or failed to deal, with the fiasco of the passport office, than another disaster was bound to come at him unannounced. Every time a prisoner falls out of the bed, the Home Secretary is held responsible; every time an octogenarian Soviet sympathiser confesses that she was a communist spy—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Those problems come with the Home Secretary's territory, but they are not within the scope of the Bill.
  Mr. Garnier: I appreciate that your patience may be wearing thin, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but if you will allow me to develop my point, you will find that it fits in extremely neatly with the arguments.
  902
  Every time that the Home Secretary tries to do something, such as dispersing asylum seekers throughout the country, he takes the blame when the plans fall apart. He used to laugh off the catalogue of disasters that have marked his period of office by saying that he could now call himself a fully paid-up member of the Home Secretaries' club—a nice little joke, but it would appeal to the public only if the disaster that hit him had not been wholly foreseeable.
  Being a Labour Home Secretary is a big job. It requires 24-hour-a-day vigilance and the political radar of a nuclear-fuelled bat to survive the criticism of the press and of one's colleagues in the House, the Cabinet and the wider party outside. It brings on a state of mind that demands success at all costs in every battle. Retreat becomes unthinkable. Intelligent regrouping or choosing another way forward is retreat.
  Mr. Gordon Prentice: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am anxious to hear arguments relating to the Bill. The House is merely getting is a lot of flannel from the hon. and learned Gentleman.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have already made an observation on the matter. Although a Second Reading debate allows a certain leeway, we cannot stray entirely from the Bill.
  Mr. Garnier: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am speaking about the Bill and its creator. What we have—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. As chairman of the proceedings, I would say that the hon. and learned Gentleman has made the point that our Home Secretary is an extremely hard-working Home Secretary. We must move on.
  Mr. Garnier: What we have is a Home Secretary who is persisting with this silly and unthinkable Bill, not because it will do good or because it is the right thing to do, but because if he were to withdraw it and pass the issue to the Auld inquiry into the criminal courts, he fears that he will be seen as weak, as the Home Secretary who gave way to the unelected House of Lords—albeit softened up by the Prime Minister's removal of the hereditary peerage—as the Home Secretary who gave in to the 69 Members of this House who signed the early-day motion criticising his stance, and as the Home Secretary who was pushed around by his colleagues who are responsible for today's amendment.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Garnier: The Home Secretary fears that he will be seen as the Home Secretary who gave in to those of his hon. Friends who fulminate against him on the one hand for trying to be the darling of the Daily Mail and The Daily Telegraph, and on the other for being the poodle of the Treasury.
  Mr. Bermingham: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman answer two simple questions? Do he and his party agree that the Crown Prosecution Service should set the level of the charge? If so, do they agree that the CPS

  903
  should decide the level of venue, so that we could end once and for all our rather stupid system of hybrid offences and perhaps follow the Scottish system in full?
  Mr. Garnier: The interesting point is that the Home Secretary prays in aid the Scottish system, but does it, as the hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews) pointed out, in such a way that he misuses the Scottish example. I shall come on to that.
  Fiona Mactaggart: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman suggesting that the House would be better off with a Home Secretary who was overruled by the courts on, I think, 11 occasions, rather than with the current one?
  Mr. Garnier: If the hon. Lady thought that she was helping her side, she has another think coming.
  It is because the Home Secretary has been doing too much, because he has been overwhelmed by the volume of paper and advice in his Red Box with which he has to contend, because he does not dare admit that he is wrong, and because he believes that he must devour with gusto every scrap piled on his plate, that he has trapped himself with this Bill.
  The Bill does not and will not appeal to the writers or the readers of the Daily Mail or The Daily Telegraph, or to the writers or the readers of The Guardian or The Observer, all of whom know in their heads and their hearts that it is wrong and muddled.
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths: The hon. and learned Gentleman has been speaking for 10 minutes. We want to hear his fundamental opposition to the Bill. As he mentioned Scotland, has he considered the fact that more than 50,000 people in Scotland every year are tried without being allowed to elect for jury trial, and that that has been going on not just for the 18 years his party was in power, but at least since the 1600s? As there has been no outcry from Liberty or anyone else that that has caused any great breach of justice, does he accept that there are strong merits in the Scottish system, and that it is those merits and that part of the system which my right hon. Friend is trying to incorporate in the Bill?
  Mr. Garnier: There may well be merits in the Scottish system, but the Home Secretary is not trying to incorporate that system in the Bill. If the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths) had studied the Bill, perhaps he would not have made that intervention.
  The Bill is also designed to appeal to the Treasury, despite claims that it will lead to savings of only £128 million. That is a smaller figure than the sum that the Government have made the taxpayers of Britain spend on General Pinochet in the past 16 months. The Home Secretary enabled him to escape trial—before a jury or otherwise—in this country or anywhere else because he permitted him, at least, the right of election; he granted him the right to choose a confidential medical examination.
  Not long ago, an hon. Member for Blackburn spoke about a suggestion that the House should restrict a defendant's right to elect trial by jury in the Crown court.
  904
  On 27 February 1997, little more than two months before the general election, whereafter he became Home Secretary and a right hon. Member, he said:
  Let me now refer to the proposal to end the right of many defendants to elect for trial by jury, even though they may face charges of dishonesty, and their reputation and their whole future may be at stake. Surely, cutting down the right to jury trial, making the system less fair, is not only wrong but short-sighted and likely to prove ineffective … Is it not the case that that not only is the view of the Opposition and many practitioners and jurists, but was the view of the Secretary of State, at least until today?
  If the cap fits, wear it. The same man today sneers at woolly liberal lawyers from Hampstead who oppose the Bill. If he was right in February 1997, he is wrong now. If he thought that the justification for opposing the change was sustainable then, his current volte-face is incredible and—worse—risible.
  The Home Secretary may believe that charges of theft, arson, burglary, handling stolen goods and some sex crimes are trivial now, but for those in the dock, they can be life-wrecking and career-shattering. In February 1997, he said:
  If a police officer, a Member of Parliament or even a Secretary of State were charged with an offence of dishonesty, would they not insist on being tried by a jury? If that is the case, why should others be denied that right of election?—[Official Report, 27 February 1997; Vol. 291, c. 433-34.]
  I agreed with the right hon. Gentleman then. However, unlike him, I adhere to the principle of justice for all now. When the Home Secretary changes his mind, it is apparently a matter for self-congratulation; but the fate of those who have not changed their minds and oppose his policy is to be castigated and abused.
  Jean Corston: Given that the hon. and learned Gentleman has become slightly more impassioned about the subject, will he confirm today that, in the unlikely event of the Conservative party winning the next general election, it will make a manifesto commitment to reverse the effects of the Bill?
  Mr. Garnier: Yes, I will. The Home Secretary should write it down.
  The Home Secretary was not alone in the views that he previously held. In July 1993, after the royal commission on criminal justice had reported, Lord Williams of Mostyn, who is now Attorney-General, but who was then an Opposition spokesman on legal affairs in the other place and a former chairman of the Bar, wrote in The Times:
  The serious blemish in an otherwise admirable report is the proposal that in those cases where the accused can now opt for trial by jury, this right should be removed, and in cases where the Crown Prosecution Service does not agree to trial by jury, the magistrates would have the power to decide. This would be madness. There are delays and inefficiencies at present, but the way to deal with them is to improve the mechanics, not to erode a fundamental liberty. How will a defendant feel about his case if he has failed to obtain a jury trial and has his case heard in the very magistrates court that refused him his present rights? I hope that Parliament will refuse to countenance legislation of this kind.
  So do I.
  In an interview at the time, Lord Williams also said that there were "no circumstances" under which he could agree to a proposal such as that contemplated in the Bill.

  905
  He said he was "adamantly opposed" to such a proposal. It now seems that he is adamantly in favour of such madness.
  If so, he is not the only man guilty of conspiring to damage the administration of justice. Step forward another lawyer, the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), who said that it was "totally unsatisfactory" to prevent defendants from choosing trial by jury. He said that "fundamental rights to justice" could not be "driven by administrative convenience." I agree.
  Who else agrees with the views then expressed by those three members of the Government? The Criminal Bar Association, the Bar Council, the Association of Magisterial Officers, the Society of Labour Lawyers—every member of the Home Office apart from the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), may be a member of that august body—the Society of Conservative Lawyers, the Society of Liberal Democrat Lawyers, the Law Society, any number of Crown court and High Court judges to whom I and others have spoken but who cannot speak out publicly, the Legal Action Group, Justice, Liberty, the Institute of Race Relations, the Blackstone Society, the Howard League, the Portia Trust, Professor Lee Bridges—professor of law at Warwick university—Northumbria police, the National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders, the Quakers and the legal committee of the Joint Council of Her Majesty's Stipendiary Magistrates.
  Ms Hazel Blears: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Garnier: In a moment. Also in agreement are the Institute of Legal Executives, the Society of Asian Lawyers, the Association of Chief Officers of Probation and, I hope, the hon. Lady.
  Ms Blears: The hon. and learned Gentleman is reciting a litany of those who oppose these measures, but has he given any thought whatever to the rights of witnesses, victims and people who have a stake in the criminal justice system, who all too often are not heard in the House and elsewhere because they do not have the ear of rich and powerful lawyers?
  Mr. Garnier: Yes I have, which is precisely why I oppose the Bill.
  Which are the most notable organisations that support new Labour's policy? The Crown Prosecution Service, the Association of Chief Police Officers, Her Majesty's Customs and Excise, Warwickshire trading standards department, the joint office of the Department of Social Security and the Department of Health solicitor, and the Royal College of Psychiatrists, to which the Home Secretary referred.
  The Home Secretary also places great reliance on the views of the Lord Chief Justice. When he speaks in court as a judge his view, subject to appeal, is paramount. When he speaks in the other place as a legislator his views command respect, but are not to be granted any more respect than those of the Home Secretary.
  What arguments do the Government put up for this silly and unnecessary Bill, which was not even mentioned in their election manifesto? First, they say that the accused does not have the right of election in Scotland so why
  906
  should he have it here. After the mess that Labour has made of the party in Wales and the race for mayor of London, we could be forgiven for thinking not only that in Scotland there is no right of election, but that the Home Secretary's comparison is false for precisely the reasons advanced by the hon. and learned Member for Medway. The prosecutor chooses venue in Scotland, but the sheriff who tries the summary case is the equivalent of a stipendiary magistrate or a circuit judge in this jurisdiction, not a bench of lay magistrates.
  Moreover, the maximum sentence available on summary trial in Scotland is three months, not six, and unlike in this country, the summary court has no power to commit a convicted defendant to a higher court for a more severe sentence if it feels that its powers are insufficient.
  Mr. Hogg: Although I have a great respect for the stipendiary magistracy, is it not worth reminding the House that a stipendiary magistrate sits in a magistrates court as one judge—the judge of fact? We must consider whether one judge—namely, the stipendiary magistrate—should be the judge of fact in, for example, cases involving dishonesty.
  Mr. Garnier: That is a perfectly good point and I hope that we shall be able to discuss it further in Committee.
  Another point was mentioned by the Minister of State on the Radio 4 "Today" programme in support of the Bill: Britain is the only country in Europe, and possibly elsewhere, that allows the defendant the right to choose his place of trial. So what? Britain is the only country that does a great many things that do not need to be changed or done away with on that account. Many European countries do not have trial by jury at all.
  Mr. Grieve: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that a particularly chilling feature of the Bill is that the Government who introduced the Human Rights Act 1998 want to ratchet down to a common mean every single right that defendants have in the courts that are well over and above that Act?
  Mr. Garnier: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I often wonder why the Government allow themselves to rubber-stamp their Bills with the declaration under section 19(1)(a) of the Human Rights Act without having thought what they are doing.
  Mr. Straw: Challenge the Bill.
  Mr. Garnier: The Bill is not yet an Act of Parliament.
  Many European countries do not have trial by jury at all. If new Labour stands for drab, dull, monotonous uniformity—or what the Home Secretary calls modernisation—we have further cause for concern.
  In another context, but equally to do with human rights, the Government support those who dare to be different. For once, why do not they stand up for the distinctiveness that is Britain and have the courage and the pride to do so?
  The Government's next point is that the Bill will save money. The figure has gone up in the past few days from £105 million to £128 million a year, but that is still less than they spent on General Pinochet. It is a misleading statistic anyway, as more than £80 million of the alleged

  907
  savings will not come from reduced fees for lawyers or court costs. They will, so the Government say, come from the shorter prison sentences imposed by magistrates. They will be savings for the Prison Service. At least two points concern me about that. Why should a defendant receive a different and lesser sentence in another court for the same offence on the same evidence after a contested trial? Why are the Government, who said that they would be tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime, using the Bill to be weak on crime and weak on the causes of crime?
  The Government say that efficiency savings in the courts will follow the passage of the Bill, claiming £12.5 million on committals and £41.5 million on Crown court trials that would no longer take place, but the Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng), who is no longer in his place, has already shot that fox. He said:
  Section 49 of the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 (plea before venue) has led to a decrease in the number of persons committed to the Crown Court for trial.
  He did not, of course, thank my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe—the Home Secretary who introduced the provision to make that sensible change to criminal procedure—even though the number of cases going to the Crown court has almost halved, from more than 30,000 to about 18,000, as a direct result.
  As Baroness Kennedy of the Shaws admitted in the other place on 20 January, making the simple administrative change of asking the defendant for his plea before asking where he wants to be tried has achieved an extraordinary reduction in Crown court cases. Like her, I have absolutely no doubt that it is not beyond the wit, even of this Government, to introduce proposals as useful as that in respect of the 1996 Act rather than bashing on with the Bill.
  Mr. Clappison: Does my hon. and learned Friend recall that the Home Secretary, when shadow Home Secretary, said on 27 February 1996 that the Government should wait to see what effect the 1996 Act had on the number of cases being committed to the Crown court at the election of the defendant? Since then, as he rightly says, the number of cases has gone down. The Home Secretary does not have a leg to stand on.
  Mr. Garnier: I agree with my hon. Friend.
  If, as the Government claim, people are abusing the system of election because they want to spend Christmas at home rather than in prison, it should be made clear to them at the point of election that they will be penalised if they are found to have abused the system. As Baroness Kennedy said:
  Ways can be found of creating sticks and carrots here that would achieve the same ends.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 20 January 2000; Vol. 608, c. 1282.]
  That seems sensible and timely advice.
  The Bill will save money, says the Home Secretary. Will it really? Can we rely on the Government's unaudited assumptions? First, there will be a hearing before the magistrates about where the case should be heard. They will no longer be able to take into account the effect of a possible conviction on the livelihood or the
  908
  reputation of the accused, which means that instead of discriminating in favour of one class of defendant—or to use the Home Secretary's words, a police officer, an MP or even a Secretary of State—the new Bill will lead to a new and diametrically opposite sort of discrimination. Those with previous convictions will—thanks to proposed new section 19(2)(c) of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980, to be introduced by the Bill—have a greater chance of a jury trial than those with no criminal record at all. Potential loss of a good reputation and livelihood will now be a positive bar to trial by jury, because the Bill does not allow that to be taken into account in a decision on venue.
  Added to the many concerns that have been made plain by those who speak on behalf of the ethnic minority communities—the Home Secretary surely remembers the voices of the Lawrence family solicitor, Imran Khan, and of Peter Herbert, the chairman of the Society of Black Lawyers—that will add to the loss of confidence in the summary justice system that many groups have already undergone. It is undoubtedly true that those venue hearings will be lengthy and fiercely contested and that they will lead to dissatisfaction in the minds of many defendants with the summary process and the magistrates courts. With what result? There will be appeals to the Crown court under new section 20 of the 1980 Act, and there will be plenty of them. The Home Secretary's written answers about projected appeal numbers are no doubt honestly given, but they betray the Whitehall mandarin's detachment from real life in the criminal courts. These appeals will go only to the resident judge—the senior judge in each court centre—and will be heard, the Home Secretary tells us, within 48 hours.
  Mr. Hogg: There is, of course, a right of appeal, to which my hon. and learned Friend is drawing the House's attention; but will he also point out that, if the appeal is heard within 48 hours, there is a real risk that those legal representatives of the accused person who are familiar with the case will not be present, or able in any way to deal with the appeal?
  Mr. Garnier: That is a telling point, and one that has escaped the Home Secretary.
  The resident judges—there are not many of them—will not thank the Home Secretary for this additional work when they are already hard pressed dealing with trial, pre-trial and other contested matters, as well as the administrative work that goes with their job. Even according to the Home Secretary's figures, appeals to resident judges are likely to add between two and four hours a week to their court work load, which will mean that other trials are delayed or held up. Nor is there any help at hand, as the Lord Chancellor's Department keeps them on short rations, and the Home Secretary has announced in a written answer that there will be no additional judges, full or part time, and no additional stipendiary magistrates, full or part time, to assist in dealing with the extra work that the Bill will create.
  Let us assume that the judge agrees with the magistrates, and sends the case back for summary trial. Another bench of JPs will have to be found for a third hearing; if they convict, the defendant has the right of appeal to the Crown court for a complete re-hearing, before a judge and two magistrates, against conviction and/or sentence. If they convict but do not think they have adequate sentencing powers, the magistrates can commit

  909
  the defendant to the Crown court for sentence. The defendant can appeal against the increased sentence as well. That involves five possible court appearances.
  Rather than decreasing the number of court hearings, the Bill will tend to increase their number, and to increase the cost of criminal justice. By increasing the number of hearings and causing delay, it will increase the anguish experienced by witnesses and victims of crime. That is the very point about which the hon. Member for Salford (Ms Blears) was concerned, and if she maintains her concern she should vote with us tonight.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: I hope that Labour Members are listening to this. Can the hon. and learned Gentleman confirm that the arguments about the number of stages that will follow the Bill, and the cost and delay involved, have never been evaluated by Government, have never been added to the equation, and have never been counted against any arguable savings that Government are presenting as some justification for their case?
  Mr. Garnier: The Bill was presented by a Home Secretary who claims to be a lawyer, but who has simply not advised himself of the evidence and the issues. There have been a number of written answers from either the Home Secretary or his junior ministerial colleagues over the past two or three weeks dealing with the number of cases likely to go to appeal and the possible costs, but they are wholly unaudited: they are guesses.
  Ms Blears: The figures given by the hon. and learned Gentleman in regard to the likelihood of appeals strike me as guesswork on his own part. How does he explain the fact that the appeal rate against magistrates' decisions in the thousands of cases already heard by them—cases of theft, burglary and plenty of either-way offences—is less than 2 per cent? How does he explain the fact that people are content with magistrates' decisions, feel that they have had a fair trial and feel that they have been dealt with properly? Surely the hon. and learned Gentleman's figures have been plucked out of the air: we have no evidence that that is the likely number of appeals.
  Mr. Garnier: I am not sure that I follow the hon. Lady's argument, but if extended to its logical conclusion, it probably suggests that we do away with any form of criminal trial system.
  What further reason did the Home Secretary adduce to persuade us to support the Bill? He said that the current system was an old lag's charter. It is no such thing, as the Home Secretary knows and as even a cursory analysis will reveal. But if it is an old lag's charter, why not listen to Lady Kennedy? If it is an old lag's charter, why did the Government abandon our "honesty in sentencing" proposals, which allow a judge to disregard time spent on remand by those who have tried to play the system?
  In any event, as the hon. and learned Member for Medway pointed out, it is well known that the Crown Prosecution Service overcharges defendants on occasion. The defendants then do not plead guilty, and elect trial at the Crown court. At the Crown court, perhaps at the plea and directions hearing in advance of the trial, independent prosecuting counsel will advise on the merits of the prosecution, reduce the charge and secure a guilty plea to the lesser charge.
  910
  How can the exercise of a right to jury trial—where a defendant is given better disclosure of the prosecution case, and where he may feel that he will be tried by his peers and not by those of a different ethnic, social or economic background—be termed an abuse? It is as much a defendant's right as any right enjoyed by the citizen, and should not be done away with at the whim of this Home Secretary.
  Sir Nicholas Lyell: Is not that point particularly important now, when the Director of Public Prosecutions has just gone public with his grave concern about the difficulty of the police in giving proper disclosure, and the difficulty of the Crown Prosecution Service in correcting that? We are talking about 40 per cent. and 14 per cent. of all cases in each instance.
  Mr. Garnier: My right hon. and learned Friend is entirely right. These are not new points, yet they seem to have escaped the attention of the Home Secretary.
  Our concern is all the greater when we consider that our criminal justice system is largely consensual. Defendants are rarely shackled in court, and often sit in the dock by themselves. Security is low key, and guilty men are sentenced knowing that, although they have been convicted, they have been justly convicted by their fellow citizens who have heard the evidence.
  This is a short and simple Bill. It is a short, simple and bad Bill. It is an unwanted and unnecessary Bill. It is an unjust Bill. It is a Bill whose older sibling was deservedly defeated in the Lords, and it is a Bill that deserves to be defeated here. If we cannot knock it down here—even with the assistance of the many Labour Members who know a just cause when they see one—we, the Bill's opponents of all parties and of none, look forward to its defeat in another place.
  The Bill will do the Home Secretary no credit, and he knows it. It does the Government no credit, and they know it. It will hang round the neck of the Home Secretary like a rotting albatross.
  6.7 pm
  Jean Corston: I support the Bill, and I do not do so on grounds of cost. I spoke recently to someone from the Commonwealth, who said that, when he thought of Britain, he thought of fair play, justice and democracy. Justice and democracy are expensive, and I think that we should be prepared to pay the price. I accept that those who are responsible for the Government's purse strings may consider that to be a factor, but to me it is utterly irrelevant.
  Unlike my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, I did not criticise the proposal when the royal commission published its report, because I paid great attention to who was on the commission. It consisted of 11 people, most of whom I did not know, although the positions that they held at the time suggested that they could be trusted to consider the way in which our criminal justice system should be amended to deal with the collapse in public confidence that came in the wake of all the miscarriages of justice that we have seen, many of them in Irish cases.
  Two members of the commission in particular, who are known to me in different contexts, led me to feel that I should respect its unanimous view. I refer to the chair, Lord Runciman—Garry Runciman, a highly respected

  911
  social scientist, treasurer of the Child Poverty Action Group for many years and also, as it happens, a business man, as well as being the author of major works of sociology—and Professor Michael Zander, of the London school of economics.
  I must declare a kind of interest at this point: Professor Zander was one of my teachers when I was a somewhat elderly law student at the LSE. In any event, I have the utmost respect for him, and no one could doubt his civil liberty credentials.
  The royal commission relied on figures from research by the Home Office's research and planning unit, conducted by Hedderman and Moxon and published by HMSO in 1992.
  In case anyone is going to say, "Ah. We now have plea before venue," the House of Commons Library says that, so far as it is aware, the number of cases in the last year for which figures are available, post-plea before venue, where people plead guilty at the door of court, is 11,000. At that time, however, Hedderman and Moxon pointed out that only 18 per cent. of cases tried in the Crown court were indictable. The remainder were either-way cases. Fifty-two per cent. were directed automatically by magistrates, who considered that it would be more appropriate for a Crown court to deal with the matter.
  Mr. Marshall-Andrews: Is my hon. Friend aware that it was an essential part of Runciman's suggestion that, should the right of trial by jury be given up, that magistrates should consider, by statute, the reputation of the people to whom they were denying trial? It was an essential part of Runciman, which has been taken out of the Bill. As she knows Michael Zander, does she know whether he has changed his mind?
  Jean Corston: Of course I am aware that the commission thought that the reputation should be considered, but surely my hon. and learned Friend is aware of the reasons why it has been removed from the Bill.
  Thirty per cent. of cases went to the Crown court as a result of the defendant's election—the defendant chose trial by jury. Three main objectives in making that choice were cited. The first was that it put off the day of trial, which is obvious. If in custody, the defendant will spend time on remand. Spending time in any prison is not pleasant, but at least someone on remand will have better access to lawyers, more visits, the right to wear their own clothes and to spend more money in the prison shop.
  The second objective was said to be that defendants believed that there would be a better chance of acquittal as they thought that the trial process would be fairer. There may be some truth in that, but the royal commission found it odd that most of them ended up pleading guilty. By the day of trial, 70 per cent. of those who elected for trial had pleaded guilty to all the charges. A further 13 per cent. pleaded guilty to some charges.
  The third objective cited was the belief that a Crown court sentence would be lighter. That belief is much mistaken. Judges are three times more likely to impose immediate custody. On average, sentences are two and a half times as long. One third of defendants who elected trial by jury said that, in retrospect, they would have
  912
  preferred to have been dealt with by magistrates. For all types of offences, magistrates are more likely to order defendants to pay compensation to victims.
  The royal commission knew that there would be objections, particularly from the legal establishment. It was not mistaken, but it said that magistrates conducted more than 93 per cent. of all criminal cases—that is 1.8 million cases a year—and should be trusted to try fairly. Therefore, it is invidious to suggest that it is not possible to get justice in a magistrates court. Very few miscarriages of justice have been referred to the Criminal Cases Review Commission following magistrates court decisions; indeed, it may be only one.
  The royal commission did not consider that defendants should be able to choose the mode of trial that they thought would offer them a better chance of acquittal, any more than they should be able to choose the judge whom they thought would give them a more lenient sentence.
  Last year, 400,000 either-way cases were tried by magistrates: that is, 400,000 cases where defendants said that they were happy for the magistrate to proceed immediately to trial. That does not seem like a lack of confidence to me. Furthermore, of the 65,000 cases that went to the Crown court, 47,000 were sent by magistrates themselves because they thought it inappropriate for them to try those cases. They do have some knowledge of what is appropriate in terms of their jurisdiction.
  In any event, the Bill will provide for a right of appeal to a Crown court judge for anyone who is refused jury trial as a result of a magistrates court deciding to reserve the case to themselves. It is an important safeguard, but not one that was recommended by the royal commission.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Jean Corston: With respect, may I ask for a short intervention because there is a time limit on my speech and there will not be on the hon. Gentleman's?
  Mr. Hughes: The question is simple. Why is the hon. Lady's argument not an argument for getting rid of jury trial all together?
  Jean Corston: That is an extraordinary question from someone who, I understand, practises law. In some cases—for example, murder and rape—no one would suggest that magistrates have the competence to deal with such matters. Apart from anything else, there is the length of the trial.
  The Attorney-General, Lord Williams of Mostyn, for whom I have much respect, said that those who opposed the Bill would have to say
  to the female complainant in a rape case—
  the type of victim to whom my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Dr. Jones) referred earlier—
  "Your case is not going to come on for nine months" … why? Because the system is clogged up with matter that … does not really need to be there.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 20 January 2000; Vol. 608, c. 1293.]
  That is something that we have to acknowledge.
  Mr. Burnett rose—
  Jean Corston: I will not give way again because of the time limit on my speech.

  913
  I turn to the question of race. In my constituency, there is a considerable population of people from the black and Asian communities. If I had thought that the Bill would in any way harm their prospects of a fair trial, or their representation in the criminal justice system, I would have been the first to have said so and to have voted against it. I am absolutely committed to the eradication of racism in our society and oppose the way in which black people can be stigmatised by the criminal justice system, but I have been influenced by research by Dr. Bonny Mhlanga of Hull university, who conducted an analysis of 5,500 defendants, which was published in October.
  The research concluded that black and Asian defendants were less likely to be convicted after contested trials in both Crown and magistrates courts. At magistrates courts, 48 per cent. of cases involving black defendants did not result in conviction. The equivalent figure for white defendants was 41 per cent. In the Crown court, 36 per cent. of black defendants and 30 per cent. of white defendants were not convicted. Therefore, it is not true to say that black people are less likely to get justice from magistrates.
  If there is a problem with the magistracy, let people say so and let us do something about it. As a result of the royal commission and the lack of confidence that most of us displayed in our criminal justice system after the disgraceful and outrageous cases involving people such as the Birmingham six, the Bridgewater four, the Guildford four and all the rest, Labour Members said that we should look at the way in which the judiciary was elected and judges behaved. We are trying to do that. If there is a similar problem with the magistracy—it has not been brought to my attention that there is—let us deal with it, rather than say, "Let us have a Crown court system," which is bogged down with things that simply do not need to be there and is used as a delaying tactic by people who know the form.
  In turning to the legal profession itself, I have to declare an interest: before I came to the House, I practised as a barrister. I never practised criminal law, but I have during my time as a Member of Parliament been much persuaded by briefings from organisations such as the Bar Council—I am a member of the Bar—the Law Society, Justice and Liberty. I am not so persuaded now.
  I served on the Standing Committee that considered the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill. One of its provisions was the abolition of the right to silence. A new form of caution was to be administered to people when they were arrested, or taken to a police station.
  We were all told—those of us on the Standing Committee had a specific responsibility to look at every single briefing that came before us—that that was the most appalling attack on the rights of defendants, that it would lead to miscarriages of justice, that it was wrongheaded and anti-democratic. I cannot describe the effect that that had on me. Those were the days when we were in opposition and used to turn up at a three-line vote for a principled abstention.
  I was one of the 40-odd Labour Members who made myself very unpopular by voting against that Bill. I did so on the basis that the Bar Council and Law Society had said that it was the end of justice as we knew it, or words to that effect. Ever since, I have been waiting for all those miscarriages of justice that were going to emerge because of that measure to do so, but they have not. All I say to
  914
  people at the Bar Council and the Law Society is, "Think very carefully about how you conduct yourselves, because some of us are beginning to think that you sometimes raise siren voices."
  The name of the Attorney-General was invoked by Opposition Members. He was once the chairman of the Bar Council. When he heard some of the objections being made to the Bill in another place, he said that, as a former Bar Council chairman, he himself had behaved in that type of "neanderthal" fashion. I tell those organisations—for many of whom I have the utmost respect—"Be very careful in how you express yourselves, because the way in which you are pursuing some of these issues is having precisely the opposite effect to that which you intended."
  6.20 pm
  Mr. Michael Howard: It is a great privilege to follow the hon. Member for Bristol, East (Jean Corston). She made an extremely cogent speech. I particularly enjoyed her remarks about the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. She will recall that, in opposition, Labour Front Benchers opposed the right of silence provisions, although they did abstain on Third Reading.
  I was also particularly interested in the hon. Lady's comments on the long study that she has evidently given to the issue of jury trials. She will forgive me if I am wrong—I hope that she will correct me if I am wrong—but I do not recall her rushing to support the original proposal, which now finds itself in the Criminal Justice (Mode of Trial)(No.2) Bill, when I made it in February 1997.
  The Home Secretary has acknowledged that introducing the Bill in Parliament represents for him a complete volte-face from the position that he took when I proposed it, for consultation and without commitment, in February 1997. He then described it as wrong, short-sighted and likely to prove ineffective. Unfortunately—I say this to him as gently as I can—he has been more than a little disingenuous in explaining the change in his position.
  In a press notice issued by the Home Office, on 19 November 1999—the day on which the original version of the Bill was introduced in another place—the Home Secretary laid great emphasis in explaining his change of position on what he described as the "new provision" of a special right of appeal. That, he said, deals with what he described as one of his "key worries" when he was in opposition.
  The Home Secretary cannot possibly be unaware of the fact that, in the very statement that I made in February 1997, when I announced the proposal, I referred to the provision of a right of appeal against a decision by the magistrates not to allow a case to go to the Crown court. So that is hardly a "new provision".
  So far from making any reference in his response to my statement to what he now describes as one of his "key worries", the Home Secretary criticised that right of appeal on the grounds that it would cause delay. I am, therefore, sorry to say to the Home Secretary—as gently as I can—that he has been less than straightforward in the explanation that he has given for his change of heart.
  I suppose that no one should be at all surprised by that. The Home Secretary's change of heart on this issue is all of a piece with his change of heart on many other issues.

  915
  When he was in opposition, he described private prisons as "morally repugnant", but now he embraces them with enthusiasm. The truth is that Labour Members won the previous general election through unprincipled opportunist opposition, and they have remained true to those values in government.
  My right. hon. and hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench have made their position on the proposal clear, and they are perfectly entitled to do so. As I made clear when I originally made the proposal, it was for consultation and it was without commitment. But I know what I wanted to do. The Home Secretary is quite right: had I remained Home Secretary after the general election, I would indeed have tried to persuade my colleagues to accept and implement the proposal. I do not know whether I would have succeeded in doing so. Nevertheless, that is what I have tried to do—for all the reasons stated by the Home Secretary and, in another place, by the Attorney-General when they presented the Bill in its original form.
  If the Bill had been presented to the House in its original form, I would have voted for it. I know that it is a moot point whether that support would have caused more embarrassment to my right hon. Friends on the Front Bench or to the Home Secretary, but that is what I would have done. That is what I was fully prepared to do, because I have not changed my mind.
  Mr. Hogg: Had my right hon. and learned Friend presented his proposals on the right of appeal, would that right of appeal be an oral one or on the papers, as is proposed by the Home Secretary?
  Mr. Howard: I had not considered in detail the type of appeal that would be offered, and so I cannot give my right hon. and learned Friend an answer to that question.
  The Bill that we have before us today has departed from the original Bill in one vital respect.
  Virtually every statement that I have been able to find on this issue has emphasised the importance of taking into account, in any decision on the mode of trial, the effect of a conviction on the reputation and livelihood of the defendant. The reason for that—it has absolutely nothing to do with class, colour or any of the other matters that have been drawn into the argument—is that, for someone with a string of convictions, the only punishment that he would receive if he were convicted is the sentence imposed by the court. If someone of good character were convicted, however, particularly if his or her livelihood depends on that good character, the punishment is far more severe than the sentence imposed by the court.
  That is why the Home Secretary was absolutely right, when he originally announced his proposal, to describe the requirement to take into account the effect of a conviction on the defendant's livelihood and reputation as a "safeguard". That was the word that he used, and he was right.
  That is why the Attorney-General, when he was justifying the original Bill in another place, chose this example to make his case:
  Is it right that someone, let us say, who has 10 previous convictions for shoplifting a jelly or a banana from Tesco is automatically entitled to the right to trial by jury?—[Official Report, House of Lords, 2 December 1999; Vol. 607, c. 923.]
  916
  That is why the Lord Chief Justice, when he spoke in favour of the original Bill in another place, used this example to make his case:
  On a relatively recent visit to a court outside London … I found myself trying for shoplifting an elderly man, of weak intellect, in poor health, who had more than 60 convictions for that offence. He had really no defence, as the jury concluded.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 20 January 2000; Vol. 608, c. 1253.]
  The example cited by the chief constable of Kent, and quoted by the Home Secretary in his speech today, was a similar example. The example quoted by the Home Secretary himself in his speech today was a similar example. That is why the original Bill contained the requirement that the magistrates should take into account the effect of a conviction on the defendant's livelihood and reputation.
  I agree with the Home Secretary that that provision was a safeguard. I agree with the Attorney-General that someone with 10 previous convictions for shoplifting a jelly or a banana from Tesco should not have an automatic right to trial by jury. I agree with the Lord Chief Justice that the elderly man whom he tried, who had more than 60 convictions for shoplifting, should not have an automatic right to trial by jury. I agree with the chief constable of Kent in the example that he gave. That is why I would have voted for the Bill in its original form.
  But I also passionately believe that a lorry driver with an unblemished reputation, whatever his colour, who might lose his job if he is convicted of an offence of dishonesty, should at least have that fact taken into account by the magistrates when they decide the mode of trial.
  Mr. Marshall-Andrews: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept that one of the Bill's major vices is that magistrates are proscribed from considering anybody's background? They are forbidden to do so.
  Mr. Howard: I was coming to that point. The scale of the Home Secretary's volte-face on the issue is enormous.
  Mr. Straw rose—
  Mr. Howard: I should like to make my point before I give way to the Home Secretary. The original Bill required magistrates to take such issues into account. The redrafted Bill could have said that reputation and livelihood may be taken into account, but instead it forbids magistrates to take them into account. They are not allowed to have the slightest regard to the effect of a conviction on the reputation or livelihood of a defendant. If the Home Secretary still wants to intervene, perhaps he can explain how magistrates can decide whether they have sufficient powers to sentence a defendant, as the Bill requires them to do, without taking into account their circumstances, which the Bill forbids them to do. That is beyond me and the House has had no explanation. I shall be delighted to give way if the right hon. Gentleman wants to answer that.
  Mr. Straw: My question to the right hon. and learned Gentleman is different. It is clear from the text that he has just read out that the court can take into account the likely sentence. That is bound to include some circumstances relating to the offender.

  917
  The right hon. and learned Gentleman gave an example of a lorry driver. Whether a lorry driver convicted of a theft loses his job will depend on the circumstances of the theft, but a lorry driver convicted of drink-driving will certainly lose his job. Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman suggesting that the offence of drink-driving should be upgraded from summary only to either way?
  Mr. Howard: I am assessing the criteria that magistrates should take into account when deciding the mode of trial for either way offences, because that is what the Bill is about. The Home Secretary has not answered my question and I believe that what he said was wrong. New section 19(2) says:
  For the purpose of subsection (1) above the court shall consider—…
  (b) any of the circumstances of the offence (but not of the accused) which appears to the court to be relevant.
  I stress those words "not of the accused". Paragraph (c) continues
  whether, having regard to the matters to be considered under paragraph (b), the punishment which a magistrates' court would have power to impose for that offence would be adequate.
  Paragraph (b) governs paragraph (c). According to the language of the Bill, in considering whether they have sufficient powers to sentence the defendant appropriately, magistrates would, extraordinarily, not be allowed to take into account the circumstances of the defendant.
  On the Government's estimate, at least 2,000 people a year who would have been tried by a jury if the magistrate could take into account the effect of a conviction on their reputation or livelihood will not be so tried as a result of the proposals. That is not justice. This is not a Committee point, as the Home Secretary said to the hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews). The provision cripples the discretion that magistrates can exercise and strikes at the heart of the Bill. That is why I shall vote with my right hon. and hon. Friends against Second Reading.
  6.35 pm
  Mr. Robert Marshall-Andrews: I beg to move, To leave out from "That" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  "this House declines to give a Second Reading to the Criminal Justice (Mode of Trial) (No. 2) Bill which, while making provision for determining the mode of trial in the case of offences triable either summarily or on indictment, fails properly to safeguard or maintain the right to trial by jury in either way offences which may result in serious punishment and loss of livelihood."
  I declare an interest in the debate. I have been a member of the Bar for 33 years and recorder of the Crown court with full powers of a Crown court judge for 18 years. In that time I have presided over many criminal trials, sitting together with magistrates in appeals from magistrates and committals for sentence. I have represented many defendants. I have represented the police, serious crime squads and regional crime squads. I have met a lot of coppers, a lot of victims and a lot of witnesses.
  I have one abiding and passionate interest in the Bill: that it should preserve the integrity, reputation and fairness of the system in which I have served. With that experience and interest, I have no hesitation in saying that this is one of the worst Bills to come before the House
  918
  for many years. It will cause real and perceived injustice; it will cause immense delay and anxiety to victims, defendants and witnesses and their families; and it will create vast expense. I hold that view in common with every institution and organisation that is concerned with civil liberties.
  I have three preliminary points, the first of which has already been made several times. The Bill is a total volte-face for the Home Secretary. I shall not repeat again the quotation that has been given several times, when he asked whether any Member of Parliament, if charged with an offence that would have a serious effect on their well-being if convicted, would not choose trial by jury. That rhetorical question is as relevant today as it was then. I have heard nothing from him to explain that apostasy. I am not against apostasy. St. Paul had his change of mind on the road to Damascus, where he was going to carry out a bit of public prosecution on behalf of the Romans without a jury. I commend to my right hon. Friend the fact that that example of apostasy was in favour of civil liberty and religious tolerance.
  My second preliminary point is that this is not a manifesto commitment of the Labour party or any other party. It has never received careful consideration and control through conference or any forum—policy or otherwise—in my party. It has never been placed before the electorate. The proposal has been brought from its huts in the Home Office, where it has been lingering for the past 25 years, rejected repeatedly by respective Home Secretaries and Home Office Ministers, among whom it is not possible to find a single Hampstead liberal.
  It is surely wrong that the Government should use their massive and quiescent majority without the issue ever being put before the electorate, particularly as a review commission is sitting and will report by the end of the year. Its finding may then be properly considered by the electorate.
  My third preliminary point is that much use has been made of statistics that were described in the House of Lords as a heap of guesses. That was charitable. Many of the statistics that have been used to reinforce the Bill turn out on close examination to be misleading to the point of deceit. I shall give one example. The number of appeals likely to be generated as a result of magistrates in 14,000 cases denying to people who have pleaded not guilty the right to go to trial by jury has been arbitrarily calculated by the Government at 25 per cent. There is no reason to suppose that that is an accurate assessment. Anyone who practises in the courts will know that there is likely to be a much more significant number of appeals—let us say 10,000. How many days do the Government say will be lost on these appeals? The answer is 148. If 10,000 appeals are to be heard in 148 days in the Crown court, that allows four minutes and eight seconds for each appeal.
  Some in the Home Office may think that such a decision can be taken in the time that it takes to boil an egg, but that will not appeal to Crown court judges. If judges hear 10 or 12 of these cases a day, 1,000 days of Crown court time will be lost. The answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, East (Jean Corston) is that if hon. Members want to clog up the Crown court system, pass this Bill.
  Mr. Hogg: Is not another vice of the appeal system as prescribed in the Bill that it is not a real appeal system? Has the hon. and learned Gentleman seen the written answer on 2 February, in which the Home Secretary makes it plain that, in the great majority of cases, the appeal will be a paper appeal, not involving representation?
  Mr. Marshall-Andrews: I agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman. This is a wish and a prayer. The idea is that it should start off as a paper appeal. The appropriate judge will consider it, and then decide whether there should be representation. In the vast majority of cases, the judge will allow representation. The average price of an appeal to the Crown court is £679. If there are 10,000 of these cases, more than £6.7 million of public money will be wasted on the system. There is no mention of that in the Government's statistics.
  The point of principle is that jury trial is fundamental to our system of criminal justice. The reason—which the Government seek to avoid—is simply this: our system is adversarial. We do not inquire after the truth; we are interested in proof. The state brings the case against its own citizen, and must prove it. It is an axiom of our law that the state does not prove it in front of its own appointees. If cases are serious, they must be proved in front of your fellow citizens. That is the right that you have. That is not an aspersion on magistrates. It is simply a matter of saying that justice must be seen to be done.
  Mr. David Taylor: I thought that my hon. and learned Friend was on the point of suggesting that the members of the magistrates bench—of which I am one in north-west Leicestershire, although I am not sitting currently—were somehow placemen and appointees at the whim of the Government in the decisions at which they will arrive. Surely my hon. and learned Friend is not suggesting that.
  Mr. Marshall-Andrews: Of course I am not. My hon. Friend, with great respect to him, confuses what I said. If we have a system such as this, it is implicit that justice is seen to be done—not only that it is done. If the state brings a case, it must be judged by one's fellow citizens, because the perception of justice matters more than anything else. I have enormous respect for magistrates, to whom I shall refer in a moment.
  Helen Jones: I have been following my hon. and learned Friend's argument closely, and his logic seems to suggest that he would have to argue for the right of election to jury trial in every case. As I understand it, that is not what he is arguing.
  Mr. Marshall-Andrews: Certainly not, but I am grateful for the intervention. With great respect to my hon. Friend, I am either not articulating or she is not understanding what I mean. I said, in terms, that in any case where there is the risk of serious punishment—whether by sentence or by loss of reputation—the right to jury trial must be maintained. However, that right need not be exercised and, in the vast majority of cases, it is not.
  Mr. Straw: My hon. and learned Friend knows that a serious loss of reputation and employment can follow
  920
  from convictions for drink-driving, indecent exposure, assaulting a police officer or taking a motor vehicle without the consent of the owner—each of which are summary only, with no right to jury trial whatever. Is he proposing that those charges should now become either way?
  Mr. Marshall-Andrews: Certainly not. [Interruption.] I will tell you—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. The hon. and learned Gentleman must remember to use the correct parliamentary language. He should not use the word "you".
  Mr. Marshall-Andrews: Of course, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  If I may enlist what my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has said himself, in making such a decision there must be areas on the margins. For me, the margins are about right. I would not object to the margins being extended in some way, but there must be margins.
  I refer my right hon. Friend to a short passage from one of our greatest judges, who explained the issue far better than I could. He said:
  Each jury is a little Parliament. The jury sense is a parliamentary one. I cannot see the one dying and the other surviving.
  This is a good quote.
  The first object of any tyrant in Whitehall would be to make Parliament utterly subservient to his will, and the next to overthrow or diminish trial by jury, for no tyrant can afford to leave a subject's freedom in the hands of 12 of his countrymen.
  That principle underpins the whole of our judicial system. It is a fundamental principle in all cases where serious punishment may apply, either by sentence or by loss of reputation.
  In this respect, I agree with the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) that the Government have performed an impossible volte-face. To overcome the initial difficulty—which everybody understood—that the gross loss of reputation is very often a far greater penalty than the sentence in not very serious cases, the Government put in the reputation clause. Of course, the reputation clause is repellant because it creates a two-tier system. We have all argued against that, and everyone on the Government Back Benches would make common cause on that.
  The Government replied not only by abolishing the safeguard, but by making the position infinitely worse, so that now magistrates cannot take these matters into account in deciding on the right to criminal trial.
  Mr. Alan Simpson: Are we not in danger of losing another safeguard if we remove the right to elect for trial by jury? Is it not correct that about 70 per cent. of those accused who opt for trial and then plead guilty at trial actually plead guilty to different charges, and that the removal of the right to jury trial would invite overcharging through the magistrates courts, which would be their own perversion of justice?
  Mr. Marshall-Andrews: That is absolutely right. The findings of the royal commission were clear—one of the principal reasons why defendants change their plea when they get to the Crown court is because, in 50 per cent. of

  921
  cases, charges are reduced. That is as a result of something that is well known—namely, overcharging in magistrates courts. That accounts for the otherwise inexplicable point that people elect jury trial and subsequently plead guilty.
  Mr. David Taylor: Will my hon. and learned Friend give way?
  Mr. Marshall-Andrews: Before I do, could I clarify a brief point, Mr. Deputy Speaker? I was told by your immediate predecessor in the Chair that, as that I was to move the amendment, I would be allowed injury time on my fifteen minutes to take interventions.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. and learned Gentleman will not be given any special treatment. Interventions on him are allowed, but his responses are not.
  Mr. Taylor: I thank my hon. and learned Friend for allowing me this brief intervention. He refers to overcharging in magistrates courts, as though it were the magistrates courts bench that is responsible for that. Is it not at least possible that those cases which will be retained and heard in the magistrates courts under a revised regime will result in a lower charge to which defendants can, with some equanimity, plead guilty?
  Mr. Marshall-Andrews: Obviously, it is the police who overcharge, but they do so in magistrates courts knowing full well that the expertise, experience, learning and knowledge to deal with that practice does not exist in magistrates courts. When a case of overcharging comes before the Crown court, it is immediately perceived. The statistics are against my hon. Friend.
  I shall give two examples of what will happen if the Bill is passed, and in both I have in mind real cases. The first is the case of a schoolteacher who has taught for 30 years, is widely respected in his community, and stands charged on one offence of indecent assault on the uncorroborated evidence of one pupil. The sentence would not be custodial, but it would destroy his life. In those circumstances, the man will almost certainly lose his right to jury trial because the magistrates are deliberately precluded from being told of the nature of the penalty that will be imposed.
  Ms Blears: Does my hon. and learned Friend accept that the national guidelines issued to magistrates on the circumstances of the offence could include the fact that one person was in a position of trust and responsibility over the other person? Magistrates would be able to take that into account when deciding venue.
  Mr. Marshall-Andrews: That is right, but for that to be brought before the magistrates they would have to be told that the case concerned a teacher of immense reputation who had been teaching for 30 years and who had abused that trust.
  Fiona Mactaggart: Will my hon. and learned Friend give way?
  Mr. Marshall-Andrews: I am sorry; I cannot do so because I have to finish.
  922
  My second example is dear to all our hearts. It is the case of a young man, of impeccable character and background, who has spent much of his time fighting and demonstrating against the apartheid regime in South Africa. Let us suppose that one day he is charged with theft—not robbery—from a bank, on the basis of a patently false identification. Under the Bill, that young man would almost certainly be denied the right to jury trial.
  Mr. Straw: There is no doubt that such a case—of the kind that was faced by an hon. Friend—would go to the Crown court because of its complexity. My hon. and learned Friend knows that, and so does our hon. Friend.
  Mr. Marshall-Andrews: My right hon. Friend and I can argue that point, but it was not a complex case. However, our hon. Friend would be at risk if he were in that position today because he would no longer have a right to opt for jury trial. The decision would be a lottery as to whether a particular bench of magistrates had decided that it was too complex or not complex enough. It is too serious a matter to be left to a lottery in that way.
  My time is up. I am grateful for your indulgence, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall simply say in closing that the Government have, possibly unjustifiably, a reputation for being authoritarian. The jury system is the main and principal bulwark against authoritarian—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am afraid that the hon. and learned Gentleman's time is now up.
  6.54 pm
  Mr. Simon Hughes: I am happy to follow the hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews). My colleagues and I will vote for his reasoned amendment, and if that does not succeed we will vote against the Second Reading of the Bill. If we still have not prevailed, we will seek to persuade the House that the Bill should go to a Special Standing Committee to take evidence on the facts, so that people can make up their minds on the facts instead of on the Government line. I do not claim that we have not had internal difficulties about the issue or that everybody in our party originally had the same view, but after a considered debate we have come to the view that the proposal is wrong in principle and would be wrong in practice.
  It is not an argument to say that something is good because it is modernising. That was the argument used for the poll tax, which is hardly a commendation. The issue is whether a proposal will improve the law and make the system fairer and more just. The fact that a system has been long established is also not an argument against it. We are clear that the history and effectiveness of trial by jury both argue in favour of its retention.
  After the general election, we were surprised to discover that the Home Secretary had changed his mind on the issue. One of the reasons why people voted the Tories out was that they wanted an end to what were perceived as right-wing policies, but they have now come from another source. Some of the arguments from the Home Secretary and Ministers have just oversimplified the case. They say that the system is abused, but that is not borne out by the facts. They claim that the concession

  923
  made since the House of Lords threw out the Bill has solved the problems. That is an oversimplification, because it has not solved some problems. Ministers also claim that great costs will and should be saved. Both points are arguable, but the bigger point is whether a small amount of cost-saving is the price that should be paid for a large amount of loss of choice.
  Sometimes people get bogged down in the detail of the arguments, but I wish to return to the starting point for the Bill. We have a system—we can argue about how we got here—in which some cases have to go for jury trial. Those are the big cases. Some cases—the smaller ones—have to go before the magistrates. In between are many offences—interestingly, when I asked Ministers how many they could not tell me—that are either-way offences. There are 370 categories of such offences in English law, applicable in England and Wales. The proposal is that—without considering the detail or whether it is appropriate for the individual offence—all those offences will be changed in one go from a situation in which the defendant chooses the venue to the court choosing the venue.
  There will be no review of whether the Bill should apply to all the offences. No one is asking whether some summary or some indictable offences should be either way. Many of the offences included in this sweeping change are significant offences. They include making threats to kill; assault occasioning actual bodily harm; putting people in fear of violence; child abduction; indecent assault; indecency between males; burglary; theft; handling stolen goods; affray; possessing firearms; possessing controlled drugs; supplying controlled drugs; and cruelty to children. It is callous of Parliament to think that the right way to deal with that huge number of serious offences is to say to defendants to charges of any of them—it could be one of us one day—that at a stroke they will lose their right to choose where they will be tried.
  Mr. David Taylor: I shall try to help the hon. Gentleman. He is right to detail the litany of serious offences that fall into the each way category. He will know from the detailed documents that of the 1.8 million cases processed by the judicial system every year, some 65,000 are each way cases. By simple subtraction, some 47,000 cases are already referred to the Crown court on the decision of the magistrates bench, so the offences to which the hon. Gentleman refers are already properly handled by the magistrates courts.
  Mr. Hughes: The House is aware of the point that the hon. Gentleman makes. The truth of the matter is that most of these cases are decided by the courts and the defendant is happy with the decision. As the hon. Gentleman says, many of the cases are sent to the higher courts by the magistrates, not at the election of the defendant. However, I shall give the hon. Gentleman two facts that he may not have picked out of the raft of parliamentary answers on this topic over recent weeks. First, only about 18,500 defendants elect trial every year, whereas, as we know, magistrates send more than twice that number to Crown courts. Secondly, although three quarters of defendants plead guilty in Crown courts, the significant fact is that there is very little difference between the numbers of people who plead guilty who
  924
  have elected for Crown court trial, and the numbers who plead guilty whose cases have been sent for trial in the Crown court. Clearly, those answers show that people are not abusing the system.
  Mr. Taylor: That is utterly illogical.
  Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman may say that, but the facts support many arguments that I do not consider to be illogical. However, the more important point does not arise from statistics.
  I remind those hon. Members who are still minded to support the Government but who are not on the payroll vote of what the arguments are.
  First, the public case for retaining a broad base for jury trial is that it allows citizens to participate in the legal process. Jury trial is popular and adds to the legal system's credibility. It reduces those elements of the legal process in which only lawyers are involved.
  The hon. Members for Bristol, East (Jean Corston) and for Salford (Ms Blears) take a pro-Government view. However, I maintain that the argument does not come down to supporting either the witnesses or the defendant. Both are worthy of support: many hon. Members are committed to ensuring that victims and witnesses get a better deal, but not at the expense of defendants. It is important for the balance of civil liberty and justice that everyone feels confidence in the system. That system will be undermined for all of us if it loses the public's confidence.
  Another argument concerns the defendant's case for a jury. The election for Crown court trial is an election for trial by judge and jury, and not just by jury alone. The Crown court system separates questions of evidence, procedure and abuse of process—which are heard when the jury is not present—from the facts that are for the jury to determine. Some people believe that magistrates cannot easily separate what they hear in the debate about procedure from what they hear in the case.
  Mr. Taylor: Claptrap.
  Ms Blears: That is patronising.
  Mr. Hughes: It is neither: I practised at the Bar before I came to the House, and I was involved in both prosecuting and defending. I have been in court often enough to know that people do not trust magistrates as much as they trust judges and juries, because they believe and understand that judges and juries have different roles.
  Mr. Hogg: If the position were as the hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire (Mr. Taylor) suggested, would not trial judges in the Crown court deal with questions of admissibility in the jury's presence? It is because it is important that the jury does not hear the underlying debate that it is excluded.
  Mr. Hughes: One of the reasons why people do not plead guilty at the beginning of their trial is that they do not see all the evidence against them. The clerks' advice to magistrates is given out of sight, so that defendants never know what that advice is. It is never recorded, so cannot be read subsequently. There are all sorts of ways in which the magistrates system is less open and transparent.

  925
  The crucial point for defendants, whether we like it or not, is that the composition of the magistrates' Bench is not representative of Britain in 2000 in the same way that the composition of juries is.
  Ms Blears: That is such nonsense.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. We must not keep having interventions from sedentary positions.
  Mr. Hughes: The hon. Member for Salford does her reputation no good by saying that. Juries represent age, gender and race in a more balanced way than the magistracy. For defendants, therefore, the case for trial by jury is strong. The Home Secretary cited the people who support the Bill, but defendants, and those who represent them, also have a right to an opinion. They are just as important as judges, magistrates and the police.
  There is also a political case for retaining jury trial. Certainly, there is a political case to be made against abolishing jury trial for hundreds of offences in one go. We must be careful that the Government do not push Parliament into supporting the majority against the few. Most people are not defendants in court cases. It may be popular on the streets to talk about toughening up the system, taking away people's rights and giving people who have been in trouble before a hard time, but that does not mean that it is right. We must resist populism, especially in the criminal justice system, as it sets a very dangerous precedent.
  The Government have made some concessions with regard to the Bill. They inserted a reputation clause, but that only serves to show their dilemma over the Bill. A Bill with a reputation clause is clearly discriminatory, as some people have a reputation that could be presented as being more important than that of someone else. For example, if two people with no convictions were brought to trial for the same offence, and if one were 21 and out of work, while the other were a member of the Government, would the court regard their reputations as similar? No, it would not.
  The reputation clause has to go, and in that I disagree with the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard). That leaves a proposal that does not allow people, irrespective of reputation, to choose jury trial at all. I hope that the House will accept, therefore, that these arguments in support of the Bill are poor, however one approaches them.
  The Government say that abuse goes on, but they are out of date. It is no longer true to say that. The evidence cited by the House of Commons Library makes it clear that most people who plead guilty at the door of the court do not do so because they want an extended time on remand. They plead guilty because the evidence that comes to light between committal and trial has persuaded them to plead guilty, or because their lawyers have. Research by the Home Office and the Lord Chancellor's Department proves that.
  Ms Blears: What does the hon. Gentleman say about the research that shows that 27 per cent. of defendants intend to plead guilty at the time that they elect for jury trial? That means that about 6,000 cases a year proceed on the basis of a sham.
  Mr. Hughes: The other argument is that the number of people who change their plea later is going down, as is the number of those electing jury trial. The figures are not going in the direction that supports the hon. Lady's case. They are going in the opposite direction. A parliamentary answer to a question of mine states that, in 1995, 33 per cent. of either-way cases were committed for trial on the election of the defendant. However, that figure fell to 32 per cent. in 1996, and to 28 per cent. in 1997. The studies show that that reduction can be put down as much to reasons of legal process as to reasons of the interests of defendants.
  Mr. Marshall-Andrews: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the 27 per cent. of defendants who, according to Hedderman and Moxon, intended to plead guilty in 1989 all knew that they would go for trial in the Crown court anyway? That was where they were to be committed for sentencing, so they were not causing any trouble in the judicial system.
  Mr. Hughes: That is clear from the reports, and colleagues can read the research.
  Even if some people abuse the system, punishing the many because of the "abuse" of the few is wrong. It is like saying that because some people fiddle housing benefit, there should be no right to claim housing benefit. Therefore, the hon. Lady cannot argue that case and the Government should not. It is fundamentally illiberal and unjust.
  Mr. Garnier: Is not that precisely the point made by Labour's Baroness Kennedy of the Shaws? We do not have to destroy the right to jury trial in either-way cases to deal with the abuses mentioned by the hon. Member for Salford (Ms Blears)—we change the mechanics.
  Mr. Hughes: Not only is the hon. and learned Gentleman right, but many of the mechanics have been changed and are being changed. They have produced the speedier process and better system that everyone agrees should be achieved.
  On cost, the argument that these changes will save a lot of money is untested. Once we add appeals systems, we add to the cost. I ask colleagues, if they have not already done so, to read an article by probably the most learned expert in Britain on sentencing. Writing in Current Sentencing Practice News in December, Dr. David Thomas describes the bizarre procedure now proposed in the Bill and referred to by Conservative Members. Three different groups of magistrates could be trying different parts of the proceedings, as well as having appeal processes at two stages.
  The truth is that any possible cost benefits could be lost. In any event, most of them, as a parliamentary answer to me revealed, do not result from changes to the system. As a sentencing court cannot pass such long sentences, the cost of imprisonment is less. I am in favour of reducing the bill that the Prison Service gives the state, but let us

  927
  do so by reducing directly the costs of imprisonment. Let us not use cost as a back-door advantage when there is no direct relation.
  The crucial point is that the fewer jury trials there are, the cheaper it will be. No jury trials would mean a very cheap legal system. Making every trial a jury trial would make it very expensive. Please let us not argue that in order to save a bit of money, it is worth reducing the right to jury trial. If we believe that certain offences should not go before juries, let us argue for that, but for reasons other than cost.
  Mr. Burnett: My hon. Friend is making a most powerful speech. Is he as surprised as I am that the figures for the proposed savings have changed in the past month from £105 million to £128 million? Is he not amazed that there has been no independent validation of those figures?
  Mr. Hughes: It may disappoint my hon. Friend if I say that nothing now surprises me. A Bill is coming back to this House tomorrow in which free post for the London election was originally stated as costing £40 million, when it has now been agreed that it will cost £1 million or thereabouts. Independent auditing of the Government's figures does not seem to be a characteristic of this Administration. Although I am not surprised, my hon. Friend is right to argue that there should have been an audit.
  The Scottish point is another very poor point. The Government say that they want the system in England and Wales to move more in line with that in Scotland. If we are to have a debate about whether the legal system in England and Wales should be more like Scotland's, let us have it. Perhaps we should have juries of 15 people; perhaps a straight majority on a jury should be enough; perhaps we should have verdicts of "not proven"; perhaps we should have an entirely different court system. The Scottish system has a better reputation than the English one, with sheriffs and judges having better reputations than magistrates. However, a system in which there is no right to send to the higher court once someone elects conviction in the lower court is not a proper parallel. Scotland has different judges with different powers in different courts. There is no parallel.
  The Government are on weak ground in arguing the Scottish case. They cannot say that we must follow their legal system but not their stance on tuition fees. The Government say that we should not pray in aid the view of a devolved Administration. We may think that to do so is fair enough—we believe in devolution. However, let us not argue false parallels.
  Let me now deal with the ridiculous argument that anyone who knows anything about the subject is in favour of the Government's proposals. First, Lord Bingham spoke out in favour of the proposals. He cited the fact that he had had a conference and called on other High Court judges to give a view, and that the majority had apparently given their support. However, in a vote in the other place, these senior judges voted as follows: Lord Donaldson voted with the Government; Lord Ackner, Lord Brightman, Lord Lane—a former Lord Chief Justice—Lord Oliver of Aylmerton, Lord Simon of Glaisdale and Lord Wilberforce voted against the Government. Of the judges who voted, the majority were not on the Government's side but against them.
  928
  Secondly, the High Court and the Court of Appeal are not the most appropriate forums to judge such matters. Crown court judges have a very different view—they deal with these offences and with jury trials every day. From my correspondence with them and knowledge of them, they have a different perspective. Praying in aid Lord Jenkins of Hillhead and his amendment in the 1970s to reduce the verdict in juries from unanimous to majority is no argument, as Lord Jenkins himself said in another place. He did that with significant cross-party support and only a small minority of opposition in this place. The Government cannot get away with arguments that are not supported by the facts.
  Finally, of course the Government have evidence on their side. There was, for example, the royal commission view—its report was unanimous—and the Narey recommendation. There are, however, equally strong bodies of evidence, commissioned by the Home Office and the Lord Chancellor's Department, that show that it is not an open and shut case. The parliamentary answers show that the changes introduced by the previous Government are having an effect. Taking the plea before the venue is decided has resulted in fewer cases going to the Crown court. Delays are reducing.
  A National Audit Office report in December made many further good proposals to speed up the legal system. Nobody wants a slow legal process; nobody wants to block justice being done quickly. The Auld committee is there—the issue can be referred to it. Even if Labour Members are committed, bizarrely, to supporting the Government on what will become an increasingly unpopular position, I hope that they will take the option to refer the matter to a Special Standing Committee. All parties will be able to call people in to explain the position and come up with a better formulated response.
  I am not against considering whether some offences should be tried by a different method. However, it should be done in the context of looking at the criminal justice system as a whole rather than pushing through one untested, untried and unpopular item against the will of the other place and, as far as it can be judged, the will of the public.
  This is piecemeal criminal justice legislation, which is a bad way to legislate. It is populist without being principled, which is a bad way to legislate. It is not popular with people who have considered the issue and looked at the facts, which is not a good way to legislate. This measure is unworthy of the Government and many people find it particularly surprising that it should come from a Labour Government.
  The Government may discover that their proposals are politically foolish as well. They have already had one defeat in the other place. It is almost certain that they will not get the Bill through in this Session. So they will be back for the fourth time—the fourth argument, the fourth row—after the next Queen's Speech, in the run-up to the election. If Labour colleagues think that this is good election-winning stuff, they underestimate the criminal justice affinity and the liberal instincts of the British people. I hope that they learn their lesson soon. If they push the Bill through tonight, they should not expect any support for their wider criminal justice agenda. This Bill will not help reduce crime, it is not in the interests of defendants, it is not in the interests of liberty, and it should be opposed.
  7.20 pm
  Mr. Brian Sedgemore: What are we going to do about the Home Secretary? I found his speech deeply depressing. Until today, in my innocence, I had thought that the function of Cabinet Ministers was to get good publicity for the Government and the political party whom they represent. If the Home Secretary thought that his speech today would get him good publicity, he and I come from different planets.
  One of the Home Secretary's major arguments—taken up by at least two Labour Back Benchers—went roughly like this: in the past, when anyone tried to change the English legal system, there was an outcry, but subsequent events proved it unjustified, so the outcry in this case must be unjustified. I know 11-year-olds who could tell the Home Secretary that that is a false Aristotelian syllogism, in which the conclusion has not come from the premises.
  As the Home Secretary seeks to drive an indelibly stained Bill through the House, we should give him a touch of his own retributive justice. We should strip him bare, whip him to the bone and send him into exile to a land governed by tyrants. I am tempted to say that the rule for the Home Secretary should be not "three strikes and you're out", but "one strike and you're dead, Jack." However, I am a bit diffident about adopting that approach, because something about the Home Secretary calls on one to temper condign criticism with admiration—if it is possible.
  In addition, I have a reputation to uphold. In recent months, I have been described as an odious, obsequious, toadying Government lackey; a Blairite loyalist; and an unthinking supporter of the project. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) has sedulously put it around that I have given up the search for truth and have become a desperate man in search of ermine. I can only refer hon. Members to Michael Foot's wonderful biography of Byron, who, as he lay on his death bed and the priest asked him whether he would confess and return to God, replied, "Let's not be silly at this late stage."
  I hope that my criticism of the Bill and its progenitor, the Home Secretary, will be temperate, targeted, restrained and worthy of a hearing. Let me begin not with the fatal flaws in the Home Secretary's character or the iniquities of a fallen politician, but with a few general comments on the jury system that might explain to the irrational, the uncomprehending and the totally stupid why the Bill has aroused such hostility in those who believe that freedom and justice are not accidents of the English character, but necessary constructs for civilisation the world over.
  While the jury trials that are about to be abolished are, as far as the Home Secretary is concerned, "irritations"— a word so offensive suggests that he was on Prozac when he uttered it—they live deep in the psyches and the history of most English men and women, and they are a matter of national pride. I say nothing about the Welsh, who have the same legal system as the English, because of what that nasty, bloody Welshman Judge Jeffries did to my ancestors after the battle of Sedgemoor in the summer of 1685.
  England's attachment to jury trial is the lamp that shows that freedom lives.
  930
  Those words were uttered by Lord Devlin, who was quoted in part by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews). Lord Devlin went on to add that if a tyrant took over our country, one of his first acts would be to diminish trials by jury because
  no tyrant could leave a subject's freedom in the hands of twelve of his countrymen.
  Well might the Home Secretary ponder those words tonight as the Division Bell sounds.
  Before trial by jury, England had trial by ordeal, which was certainly summary justice, the scope of which the Home Secretary is intent on extending. The ordeal often involved submerging people in cold water. If the suspect sank, God had accepted him, and he was innocent. If he bobbed to the surface, however, God had rejected him, and he was guilty. Today, we would call that a catch-22. I suspect that the Home Secretary, as a born-again Christian, and though constrained by the mores of modern civilisation, has a sneaking admiration for that quick, cost-free kind of summary justice.
  No matter what Home Office officials and Ministers think, there appears to be general agreement that jury trial originated in 1166 with the Assize of Clarendon, at which Henry II ordained that 12 lawful men of each hundred, and four of each vill, should report to the royal justices or sheriffs those persons reputed to have committed certain serious crimes. Out of that developed the grand jury and, later, jury trials.
  However, the most important event in the history of the criminal jury was the abolition of trial by ordeal by the edict of the Roman Catholic church in 1215, when God's messengers here on earth realised that summary and retributive justice was, perhaps, not all that it was cracked up to be. Slowly, democratic instincts replaced God as the arbiter of justice.
  My point is that a system that has a lineage stretching back not to, but beyond, Magna Carta should not be tampered with lightly. To that, the Home Secretary replies that either-way offences have been with us only since the mid-19th century. Even if we ignore a certain sophistry in that, the Home Secretary is tampering with a system that has survived for 150 years. I should be surprised if he could point to any other thing under the purview of his Department that is deemed to be good and that has lasted 150 years—150 days, perhaps. Indeed, I defy the Home Secretary to come to the Dispatch Box to tell us of any such thing.
  The Home Secretary cites three reasons for supporting the change. I shall not go over his "irritations" again, but the other two are delay and cost. I agree with the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) that we should put cost aside, but we cannot. Like every Member of Parliament, I know that cost, cost and cost are what drive the Bill. It has nothing to do with the Home Secretary's irritations, as if he had problems with his bowel movements. It has nothing to do with delays and with whether old lags are fiddling the system; it is all about money.
  I am prepared to cede the Home Secretary the argument on cost. I do not know whether he is right or wrong, but I have examined the figures produced by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Medway and I have listened to the Home Secretary. My hon. and learned Friend should give up trying to challenge the Home Secretary on those grounds. Do we really want the public

  931
  to believe that our battle hymn should be "Cry freedom—so long as it doesn't cost too much"? Who wants to follow a leader who utters such limp and palsied words? Our battle cry must be "Cry freedom—even though 'twould cost the earth". We should fight the Bill on principle, or not at all. We should leave it to the mean, small-minded Poujadists, shopkeepers and tradesmen on the Conservative Benches to haggle over the price of freedom and justice.
  The Bill will undoubtedly lead to miscarriages of justice, by which I mean the conviction of the innocent. It will undoubtedly disadvantage young black people and other ethnic minorities. It will lead to an increase in excessive charges and convictions in magistrates courts. By definition, it is, therefore, a very bad Bill indeed.
  At times like this, when I want to rail bitterly against the Home Secretary—whom once I considered nice, kind and wise—I seek refuge in the words of the poet Shelley, who wrote, in "Prometheus Unbound", perhaps the greatest cry for freedom and justice:

  To suffer woes which Hope thinks infinite;

  To forgive wrongs darker than death or night;

  To defy Power, which seems omnipotent;

  To love and bear; to hope till Hope creates

  From its own wreck the thing it contemplates;

  Neither to change, nor falter, nor repent;

  This, like thy glory, Titan, is to be

  Good, great and joyous, beautiful and free.

  Let us, therefore, this day in the House of Commons, with our hearts and our minds, vote to preserve the freedom of and the right to trial by jury.
  7.30 pm
  Mr. Humfrey Malins: It is a great privilege to follow the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore), who has spoken brilliantly. About 33 years ago, I played rugby against the hon. Gentleman. He was outstanding on the pitch, if a little punchy. I congratulate him on everything that he said this evening.
  I declare an interest: I have been a practising criminal lawyer for many years. I have sat judicially as a recorder of the Crown court and as an acting metropolitan stipendiary magistrate, also for many years, in dozens of court centres in London and the south-east. I may be the only Member of the House who has sat both in the Crown court as a judge and in the magistrates court.
  The debate has nothing to do with where one receives a better trial. It has nothing to do with whether the trial is better in the Crown court or the magistrates court. It is possible to have a wonderful or a bad trial before lay magistrates; to have a wonderful and fair trial before a stipe, or not; or to have a jury that goes one way or the other. The debate is not about that. It is about the freedom of people in this country to say, in relation to certain offences, "Rightly or wrongly, I would like to exercise my right to trial by jury."
  What does the Bill do? What does it say? What are the Labour Government saying through the Bill? They are saying, "You, the defendant—man or woman—are charged with an offence of minor dishonesty. You are a
  932
  person of good character. You have a job and an outstanding reputation. As a Government, we understand that if you are convicted, you will lose everything." The Government are telling the defendant, "Until today, you have had a right to jury trial—trial by your peers. With this Bill, we are taking away that right, simply because we believe that we can save money thereby." That is the issue.
  That approach is shameful and shoddy. The Government should not have introduced the Bill. They did not have to do so. There are several reasons why it was unnecessary. As we have already heard, Lord Justice Auld is reviewing the working of all the criminal courts and the court system. Is not it silly to introduce such a dramatic Bill and to make such a fundamental change, rather than to wait for his report?
  The Government say that the changes will save money. The explanatory notes state that the Bill is expected to save £128 million. I do not believe a word of that. If I were allowed to ask hon. Members to put up their hands if they agreed with the Government's figures, I do not suppose that a single hand would be raised. Indeed, not a single hand has gone up. What is that £128 million? Tomorrow, it could be £138 million or £148 million. Who in the Chamber believes a word of that claim?
  Mr. Garnier: It was £105 million last week.
  Mr. Malins: Indeed. It is nonsense. Anybody who has been around has learned by now to distrust Government figures. However, money is their prime motivation for introducing the Bill.
  I worry about the Bill, not least because of the delays that might result. Let us picture the scene: a defendant in the magistrates court is refused trial by jury, and he or she appeals. Until a few hours ago, I had assumed that the normal rules in the magistrates court would apply; there have always been 21 days for appeal—probably with a hearing 21 days later. However, it was only when I was talking to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) that I learned that it was envisaged that the appeals should go through in 48 hours.
  The Home Secretary must get real. It would be nonsense for him to go to a magistrates court or a Crown court and to try to get an appeal through in 24 or 48 hours. Ten to one, the prosecutor in the magistrates court would be an agent, who would push off immediately after the hearing and take a fortnight to return the papers to the Crown Prosecution Service.
  Who would draft such an appeal? What about the defence lawyer? If it is intended to conclude the appeal within 48 hours, why is there no provision for that in the Bill? Why is there no mention of it in the explanatory notes? Furthermore, will it not be a sham if the appeal is merely carried out by paperwork? A worthwhile appeal must have an oral hearing. In his reply, will the Minister undertake that oral hearings may be granted in every case? Any appeal judge would look at the bits of paper and say, "I want to hear the advocate on this matter." It cannot be done in 48 hours; it is nonsense to believe that that could occur.
  There is another cruel unfairness about the Bill. The Government are saying to a defendant, "We won't let you go to the Crown court for your trial, but having insisted

  933
  that you be tried in the magistrates court, we retain the right to send you to the Crown court for sentence." That is a fundamental unfairness. It will create much dissension and unhappiness.
  The Government claim that many people who elect for trial in the Crown court eventually plead guilty. It is true that some people do. However, we need to ask why. Furthermore, just because that happens, does it mean that we have to introduce this measure? Of course it does not. There are two principal reasons why people go to the Crown court and plead guilty. The first is significant; it is to do with disclosure. Only when a case is committed to the Crown court does the defence receive all the papers—or nearly everything.
  Mr. Hogg: On disclosure, is there not another point that my hon. Friend would want to make? In the magistrates court, there is not the same degree of disclosure. Consequently, the defendant's conduct of the defence case in that court would be hampered by lack of disclosure.
  Mr. Malin: My right hon. and learned Friend is right. In the magistrates court, disclosure sometimes amounts to only one side of A4 paper with a summary of the facts. It is only by going to the Crown court that the defendant knows everything and so, better-informed and with counsel's advice, has to say, "I must plead guilty."
  The second reason that people who go to the Crown court sometimes plead guilty is because when they arrive there, the charges are reduced. In response to the point made by the hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire (Mr. Taylor), no one is saying that the magistrates overcharged—the charge has nothing to do with the magistrates. The CPS or the police overcharge; it is a real problem.
  Those are the main reasons why people change their plea at Crown court. They do not suggest that we should remove the right of jury trial. All we have to do is to give closer consideration to accurate charging and to proper and fuller disclosure.
  Furthermore, what will happen in the magistrates courts or the stipes courts? What happens if the appeal fails and the case has to be tried in the magistrates court? Come with me to the stipes court at Camberwell Green, or wherever, and read the daily list. There are 100 overnights or remands, and sentences all morning. The space is crammed. Where is there room for a two or three-day trial? In a Crown court, the trial carries on—Monday, Tuesday and the next day. If a trial is adjourned part-heard in a magistrates court, it will go two or three months down the line. What would be the chance of getting the same bench or the same stipe? It would be slim. If there are to be more trials in the magistrates courts, the listing problems will be awful.
  Mr. Marshall-Andrews: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that is the reason why the average delay in contested cases in magistrates courts is 21 weeks, whereas the average time for two-day cases to be heard after committal to the Crown court is five weeks? The delay is infinitely less.
  Mr. Matins: The hon. and learned Gentleman has an outstanding history at the Bar. He is right. At present, to
  934
  get a two-day slot for a trial in the magistrates courts, one has to look months ahead. It is much quicker in the Crown court.
  Ms Blears: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that in the Narey pilot areas the time taken to deal with cases in the magistrates courts has been reduced by two thirds and that, because the Narey recommendations came into force on 1 November last year, we should see a similar decrease in the time that it takes such courts to dispose of cases?
  Mr. Malins: It is my fault, but I do not know whether the hon. Lady has a great deal of judicial and court experience; I am sure that she has. The Narey courts that sit at the moment are creating quicker through-processes, but that is no reason to introduce this Bill. It is every reason to let the situation develop over the next few months and see how things go on.
  I shall have to conclude my remarks shortly, but let us consider the position and assess what we need to keep and what we need to change. First, plea-before-venue has done very well. It was introduced by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), the former Home Secretary, and it has saved a lot of time. It has been coupled with the huge credits that defendants now get for an early guilty plea, so when I am in court I see, day after day, plea-before-venue and guilty pleas. That saves a lot of time.
  There is far less abuse of the system than there used to be. Frankly, if, once every couple of months, I scratch my head as I sit judicially in a stipendiary court and say, "This is a bit of an abuse of the system"—and I have said that—that is a very small price to pay for the greater good that we want to maintain.
  Why do we not look at other issues, such as declassifying—or is it reclassifying—offences? Hon. Members have pointed out that habits and moods change. Years ago, all cases of criminal damage would go to the Crown court, but now—I shall be corrected if I am wrong—there is a £5,000 maximum limit. Taking and driving away a car used to be worth a sentence of three years on indictment, but now it is only six months. Driving while disqualified was worth a sentence of 12 months, but now it is worth only six even though sometimes it should be worth more. Finally, drink-driving is only a summary offence. Times changes and should we not, along with the Auld report, consider such issues? Are there other offences which we could perhaps consider for summary trial only?
  I have described the approach that we should consider in future. We also need to wait to see what the Law Commission says about assault cases. My goodness, one sees many assaults charged as actual bodily harm even though they should be charged as common assault. Why are the people in the House who know about the subject not being asked by the Government for their views? Why do we not think about the issues carefully and constructively? That is what we should do.
  What we do not want to do is say to that man or woman to whom I referred earlier, "You've had this right for many, many years. We're taking it away because we are going to save money." That is why this Bill, which has not been thought through and will not save time or money, is at the end of the day terribly unfair.
  7.43 pm
  Ms Bridget Prentice: I say at the outset that I shall support the Bill, as I said I would in my contribution to the debate on the Queen's Speech. It is much needed and it gives us an opportunity to debate the role of lay people in the justice system, which is a good thing. It is important that we consider the balance between fairness to the accused and fairness to victims. We have to ensure that we make justice efficient and fair.
  I believe that I am the first person to speak in the debate who is not, or has not been, a practising lawyer. I am therefore rather reluctant to enter the fray with the great and incisive minds of our revered legal profession. However, I find it difficult to leave something alone if I see something wrong with it. I feel obliged to challenge it, and that is one of the reasons for my speech.
  I am tempted to say that I have come to bury lawyers, not to praise them, but I will not. Some of them are not such bad people. However, I hope that the Bill will bury the arrogant, patronising and elitist attitude that so many in the legal profession have shown towards the lay magistracy and to the jury system.
  When I spoke in the Queen's Speech debate, I said what my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, East (Jean Corston) said earlier. My reasons for supporting the Bill are not to do with whether it saves any money. That should not be the serious motivating factor behind it, and I hope that it is not. If there are financial gains as a consequence, that is well and good and I shall welcome them. However, it is not my first reason for supporting the Bill.
  There has been an amazing outcry from some quarters, including the press and the legal profession, that the Bill is an outrageous assault on civil liberties. Although I realise that some hon. Members—and certainly the gentlemen of the press—do not allow facts to get in the way of a good story, let us consider them. More than 90 per cent. of all criminal trials begin and end in the magistrates courts. Some of them are for petty offences and others are for quite serious ones, such as those that we have heard described tonight. I think that assaulting a police officer is a serious offence, and I hope that the House would agree. That offence is dealt with in a magistrates court. I think that driving while unfit is a serious offence, and that is dealt with in a magistrates court.
  If trial by jury is such a safeguard for our civil liberties, why is no one suggesting that those offences—indeed, all offences—should have jury trials? I hope that, because we have sufficient faith in the magistracy to deal with such cases fairly and with common sense, we accept that it is appropriate for them to be dealt with in the magistrates courts.
  As has been pointed out, of the either-way cases sent to the Crown court, the vast majority are sent by magistrates declining jurisdiction themselves. Using their common sense and experience, they say that they prefer certain cases to be dealt with in the Crown courts. That is despite the fact that some defendants would have preferred to have their cases tried in a magistrate court at the time.
  When defendants opt for jury trial—the figure of 18,500 has been bandied about—70 per cent. of them admit guilt before the case comes to trial. We are talking about a small number of people who go before a judge and jury. Defendants in the Crown courts are three times
  936
  more likely to receive a custodial sentence than defendants in magistrates courts being tried for similar offences.
  The guardians of our civil liberties—affectionately known as the legal profession—say that this is a bad Bill for another reason. They say that magistrates are case hardened or that they are unqualified lay people. The implication is that the higher acquittal rate by juries shows that juries must be right and magistrates must be wrong. However, there is no way of telling whether that is true, because we do not analyse the way in which juries come to their decisions. We have no evidence on that.
  I wish to reiterate what my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, East said in passing. Miscarriages of justice in this country have taken place in Crown courts. It was not in magistrates courts that we saw the Guildford four, the Birmingham six and many others being, tragically, the subject of miscarriages of justice.
  Some people suggest that defendants should have a right to trial by jury because that gives them a better chance of acquittal.
  Mr. Marshall-Andrews: Will my hon. Friend explain why the proportion of acquittals in magistrates courts is less than the proportion of cases thrown out by judges which never come before a jury because there is no evidence? That is a worrying statistic, but why does it happen?
  Ms Prentice: My hon. and learned Friend made a similar point to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, but he misses the point. There are fewer acquittals in a magistrates courts because more people plead guilty, and very few cases are thrown out by judges. People go to the door of the court and decide to plead guilty. My hon. and learned Friend's point is a different argument altogether.
  The claim that defendants exercise their right to a jury trial because they think that it will give them a better chance of acquittal is a dodgy reason for supporting the present system. We might as well say that the defendant should be able to opt for the judge whom he thinks will be a soft touch. That would bring the whole system into dreadful disrepute.
  I want to make it clear that I support both the magistrates system and the jury system. I have been a magistrate and a juror, and both sets of good citizens work hard to come to the right decision. No system is perfect, but on the whole jurors, like magistrates, try to bring their common sense and local experience to each case and do their best to come to a fair judgment. It is wrong to suggest, as hon. Members have done in the debate, that magistrates do not know or understand the local area. They come from that area; they live and work there; they represent it, and they are as concerned as anyone else in the area to uphold justice.
  I agree that magistrates could do with a makeover. They do not get a very good press, which is probably thanks to debates such as this. They are portrayed as living in a world separate from that of those on whom they sit in judgment. I think, and after listening to the debate I am even more convinced, that that image has been conjured up by people who have not spent much time in magistrates courts in recent years. Magistrates are citizens too. Certainly, we need more JPs from ethnic minorities, and

  937
  JPs must reflect all strands of our society, but they are much closer to doing so than some of the hysterical arguments that we have heard would lead us to believe.
  In response to a point raised by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), I put in a plea about the jury system. Are we really seeing the true reflection of our communities on every jury? Do we really understand how juries come to their conclusions? The fact that we uphold the jury system as a good method of justice is no reason to believe that it is always perfect. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is not here at the moment. He suggested that the jury system was far more representative and therefore better than the magistracy.
  Last week, I sent the student on placement with me to the Inner London Crown court at Elephant and Castle, in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, to carry out a rough check of how many of the jurors in the 10 courts there were white and how many were from ethnic minorities; and, if possible, to give me a gender and age breakdown. I acknowledge that it was not scientific research, but the results were very interesting. She said that 95 per cent. of all the jurors were white. That does not represent inner London terribly well. My simple point is not that juries do not do a good job, but that it is wrong to assume that only juries are representative.
  Jackie Ballard: As my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) is not here to speak for himself, I ask the hon. Lady whether she accepts that everyone on the electoral register has an equal chance of ending up on a jury. That is not the same mechanism as the one by which magistrates are chosen, and every member of the population does not have an equal chance of ending up a magistrate.
  Ms Prentice: That is only partly correct, because there is enormous opportunity to decline the chance to sit on a jury. I looked at the form that a colleague had and saw that the number of exemptions is remarkable; so jury selection is not a straightforward, random process.
  I turn now to some letters and articles from barristers, whose ignorance of the magistracy seems to know no bounds. One said that in Scotland sheriffs are qualified, experienced and respected—good, so they should be—and went on to say that magistrates are unqualified. That is true; it is part of the process and it is why they are magistrates. His implication was that because they were unqualified they were unfit to try cases. How qualified does he think juries are?
  Another barrister described magistrates as
  worthy people who sit on the bench.
  Being worthy seems now to be a disqualification. A third barrister described magistrates as legally untrained, which is not true. They get rigorous, regular training. One need only consider the training that they are receiving to deal with human rights legislation. The patronising attitude and sheer arrogance of some leading banisters is almost breathtaking. Clearly they do not spend much time in magistrates courts.
  It strikes me that too many defendants in magistrates courts are not being given the best advice by their legal advisers, and I wonder why. Call me an old cynic—
  Mr. Thomas McAvoy: Never an old cynic.
  Ms Prentice: I am grateful to my hon. Friend.
  938
  Many legal advisers are allowing, or perhaps even persuading, their clients to opt for trial by jury, knowing that it will prolong events and may well financially benefit themselves. When a considerable number of defendants, having opted for jury trial, would prefer to have been dealt with in the magistrates court, we owe it to them to ask whether they were given the best advice in the first instance.
  Opponents of the Bill say that we cannot compare our system to that of Scotland, in which the procurator fiscal decides where a trial should take place. They accept that the people of Scotland believe that their system is just and fair. They are upholding the civil liberties of the people of England and Wales, but they are saying that it is all right for the prosecution to decide where a trial should take place, but not for lay justices to do so. That is a strange argument to make, from a civil libertarian point of view.
  Victims want swift justice. So do most defendants. Those defendants who go court shopping, looking for the venue that will give them the best chance of delay or acquittal, are bringing the system into disrepute. That is wrong in principle because it puts the interests of the defendant above those of witnesses, victims and everyone else. No other country that I am aware of allows the defendant to decide where he should be tried, and it is beyond me why we should do so in a minority of cases, and not even the most serious ones.
  I hope that whatever money is saved as a result of the Bill will be used to fight crime, not to pay lawyers. I do not blame the legal trade unions for fighting the Bill, but let us get real and not pretend that they are doing it for reasons of altruism and civil liberties. The Bill will make the justice system fairer and more efficient, and it will show that we value the magistrates system and the jury system, because both will be allowed properly to do the job that we ask them to do. I hope that we will take this opportunity to say loudly and clearly that we value juries and magistrates, and in doing so we will legislate for a better system of justice for everyone.
  7.58 pm
  Mr. James Clappison: I am afraid that after the speech of the hon. Member for Lewisham, East (Ms Prentice), I have to declare an interest as a member of the Bar. I suspect that her criticisms of banisters are sometimes justified, but I do not agree with her criticism of the jury system. Her contribution and that of the hon. Member for Bristol, East (Jean Corston) swam against the tide of opinion on both sides of the House.
  There is concern about the future of the jury system, and there has not been much support for the Government's position on either side of the House, with the partial exception of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), who made clear his position and his support, in principle, for the Government, but not for their methods in the Bill. He can claim to have spoken frankly today and to have been consistent in his behaviour towards the jury system.
  In opening the debate, the Home Secretary was wise to warn against overstating one's case, so I shall confine myself to saying that I have not been convinced by the arguments of the Home Secretary and his supporters that there is sufficient justification for removing a civil liberty and what used to be a right for the ordinary man in the

  939
  street. I agree with the analysis of my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Malins), who made an outstanding speech. The Bill removes a right enjoyed by all our fellow citizens, and exercised by many of them. The measure will result, at the very least, in perceived unfairness, especially for many members of the public of relatively humble origins and good character.
  The Home Secretary may have been wise to warn against overstating one's case, but he is not in the best position to give that warning. In his speech he spoke as though the proposals in the Narey report on the jury system and in previous reports were self-evident truths, and as if all those who opposed them were blinkered and hysterical. The Home Secretary read out a long list of previous examples.
  I shall not labour the point, as it has already been touched on, but I recollect the approach of the Home Secretary in dismissing the Narey report shortly before the last general election. He said then that it was wrong, short-sighted and likely to prove ineffective.
  When the right hon. Gentleman dismissed the Narey report with those words shortly before the general election, he must surely have considered all the underlying arguments and the example of the Scottish system and all the European systems that he now prays in aid.
  I do not want to hear about the Scottish system this evening. The Home Secretary considered all that and dismissed it when he opposed the Narey report. I wait to hear from the right hon. Gentleman, but so far in the debate, he has not produced a shred of new evidence to have emerged since February 1997 in support of his position. He can produce long lists of eminent people who support his view now. We can all produce long lists on one side of the argument or the other, and we could have done that in 1997, but there is not a single piece of new evidence to justify the Home Secretary's change of mind.
  The number of committals generated to the Crown court by defendants exercising their right in a magistrates court has gone down. We heard the percentages and we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Woking some of the reasons why that is happening. The Home Secretary said in 1997 that the then Government should wait and reflect. A diminution has occurred in the problem that he perceived then, which he now prays in aid as a reason for making the change.
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe comprehensively demolished the Home Secretary's argument that the new right of appeal is some sort of magic ingredient. It existed in 1997, but the shadow Home Secretary then, now the Home Secretary, did not even bother to mention it in his response.
  Mr. Hogg: I accept that the point that I am about to make could be debated, but when the last general election took place, the electorate judging the Labour party's position would have done so on the present Home Secretary's then stance, which was hostile to the proposal. Not only was the Bill not in the manifesto, but the electorate would have assumed from the posture adopted by the Home Secretary at that time that it would never be introduced.
  Mr. Clappison: My right hon. and learned Friend is right. There is no way that the Home Secretary can rebut the criticism made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe.
  The Home Secretary is entitled to say that he has changed his mind, but he cannot convincingly rebut the criticism that he has not been consistent and that he has been opportunistic. I wait to hear from him any new evidence in support of the complete volte-face that has taken place since 1997.
  I am not attracted by the argument on savings. No doubt the Home Secretary was aware in 1997 that there would have been savings. The argument is flawed and doubtful. There will be delays and additional expense as a result of the new right of appeal, and the magistrates court system will become clogged up. I place no trust in the estimates given by the Government.
  I do not like the argument, anyway. The Government are telling us that the price of law and order is the curtailment of freedom—we can have a properly staffed police force, but only if the Government save money by doing away with one of our rights. Without being partisan, I do not think that the Home Secretary and the Government are best placed to present arguments about police numbers and police forces, especially in respect of my constituency, after the terrible problems that we have experienced in Hertford—but I shall not go down that road.
  The line of argument pursued by the Government is not an attractive one. We have heard the argument before that the price of law and order is the curtailment of freedom, and we know where it eventually leads. It is a dangerous argument.
  The Home Secretary got off to a bad start by having to perform a complete volte-face, but matters have got worse since then because of the way in which the Government have introduced the legislation. By trying to address the problem of reputation, which is a real problem, the Government got into trouble and were criticised for creating a two-tier system of justice. Some legitimate criticisms were made in that regard.
  The solution to the problem is even worse. Under clause 1(2)(b), the court may not take into account the circumstances of the accused. That means that reputation cannot be taken into account. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe made clear, that is extremely damaging. It is inevitable that men and women of good character, whose reputation and livelihood will be at stake, will be deprived of the right to trial by jury—just the sort of people who many members of the public would think should have the right to a trial by jury, if they so wish.
  Mr. David Taylor: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Can he adduce evidence to demonstrate that the prospect of such a defendant obtaining justice in the Crown court is greater in each-way cases than in a magistrates court? If he has, he should tell the House.
  Mr. Clappison: I have heard that argument, but I am not impressed by it. Let the individual choose. Let us not take away the right to choose. The Bill would do so in an unfair way, as I hope to show. Before I do, I shall deal with another argument advanced by the hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire (Mr. Taylor) and by the Home Secretary: that the existing jurisdiction of the magistrates court justifies extending jurisdiction to whole new and different categories.
  As the hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews) said, there must be margins. Especially in respect of offences such as those of dishonesty, it is important for people to have the right to a trial by jury, because dishonesty carries a certain stigma. It is important that people, especially those of humble origin and perhaps with low incomes, should have the opportunity of a trial by jury when reputation and dishonesty are at issue.
  Mr. Straw: Is the hon. Gentleman therefore saying that taking a car without the consent of the owner involves no dishonesty on any occasion? Is he also saying that indecent exposure does not carry any consequences for the reputation of the defendant? Is he suggesting that we should not have summary-only cases at all?
  Mr. Clappison: The Home Secretary is again advancing an extremely unattractive line of argument, by extrapolating justification from the lesser to the greater. There must be margins, especially in cases involving dishonesty that go to the Crown court for trial by jury, such as shoplifting and burglary. For offences where people's reputation and way of life may be at stake, they should have the right to trial by jury.
  We can consider the classifications and the margins, but individuals whose reputations are at stake through dishonesty should have that right. [Interruption.] I am sorry that the Home Secretary does not take the matter more seriously. It is serious, not least because the measure will prove to be discriminatory.
  The lorry driver, about whom we heard, the council employee charged with stealing from the council, the shop assistant alleged to be stealing from her employer, the confused old lady charged with shoplifting, a coal miner charged with stealing coal—I have defended many humble people like that in the course of my career as a member of the Bar, and in each case I think that the person concerned should have had the right to a trial by jury.
  These are the sorts of people most likely to lose the right to a trial by jury. The famous broadcaster, businessman or politician, the Member of Parliament and certainly the Secretary of State, perhaps also the rich man who arrives at the magistrates court with eminent counsel—all those people will get the right to a trial by jury. But the man in the street, who comes from humble origins, has a lower income and perhaps cannot afford counsel at all—certainly not eminent counsel—will not. It is inevitable that, under the proposals, ordinary men and
  942
  women will lose the right to trial by jury—trial by their peers. They want to exercise that right when something greatly important to them—their reputation for honesty, their livelihood—may be at stake.
  The Bill is a bad measure, and it can only be bad for the man in the street. Without indulging in the high-flown rhetoric against which the Home Secretary warned us, we should use our consciences and consider whether we are justified in removing a right that has been exercised for a long time by many ordinary people—not the rich, the powerful or the famous, but the humble, the man in the street, the ordinary employee and the ordinary chap. Under the Bill, they will lose a right that has hitherto been theirs.
  The other place was right to throw out the Government's first version of the Bill.
  Ms Blears: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Clappison: No.
  The Bill is a worse version of the previous draft. Hon. Members should not lightly remove such a right from the ordinary man in the street.
  8.11 pm
  Mr. Harold Best: I have sat through the debate from the start, and I have been intrigued by the complex and difficult arguments that have been presented by what could be described as counsel for both sides.
  I am not an expert in the law. I made my living as an electrician, not a lawyer. However, I have taken a lifetime's interest in the notions of justice available in the society in which I live. I was at school during the second world war and the period immediately afterwards, when public debates were commonly held about that society's values for which it was worth fighting and dying.
  One value that was repeatedly brought to my attention was the wonderful right to a trial by jury. That made sense to me. It was represented to me very simply. Our teacher never described it as "trial by your peers," because he probably believed that I would not understand that; he was probably right. He presented it as being "tried by your fellow citizens," who had some understanding of the offence with which someone might be charged and the effect that that might have on a person's life and the lives of those close to him.
  Trial by jury holds a place in the public's mind that is special, if not unique, among the elements of the British constitutional structure. If we face the likelihood of being charged fairly and properly, or unfairly and improperly, the notion that we can get a hearing before our peers comforts us. Trial by jury represents a commonly held sense of justice. It is common-sense justice, which people understand. Anyone who interferes with access to that sort of justice walks into a difficult area, where people have been before, but which has led to serious civil rights difficulties.
  Mr. David Taylor: I have the greatest respect for my hon. Friend's views on almost every subject. However, is he aware that miscarriages of justice are far more frequent in the Crown court and the jury trials that underpin it? For example, I am not sure that the Birmingham six were

  943
  reassured by the verdict that was reached by the 12 people who were drawn from the society in which they had lived and worked for many years. Trial by jury did not do them much good.
  Mr. Best: I am, to say the least, acutely aware of that. Anyone who has been involved in politics in the past 20 years will also be acutely aware of it. However, my memory of the case suggests that the problem was that the evidence in the trial was rigged, and that that caused the jury to reach the wrong conclusion. I am surprised that my hon. Friend, with whom I normally agree, should make such a point.
  We are not considering whether the jury system is infinitely superior to magistrates courts and the role that they play. No one who has made the case against the proposed diminution of the right to jury trial has attacked magistrates. I cannot understand magistrates' hypersensitivity to the debates that have taken place in the Chamber on the subject. I would be grateful if someone could remind me of any attack on magistrates courts in our system.
  I am also acutely aware that, in any justice system, we get it wrong. My closest friend is a judge—perhaps it is one of my life's disbenefits. However, he is a fine fellow and his wife is a magistrate. They do not spend their time falling out. There is remarkable agreement about the jury system. Other friends who are magistrates spend a remarkable amount of time agreeing about the justice that derives from the jury system, of which we should be proud.
  A lawyer, who is a Member of Parliament, said that we were considering a matter of justice for the offender. When I heard those words, I nearly fell off my seat. That was a prejudicial judgment if ever I heard one. The phrase "justice for an offender" implies that the judgment has already been made that we are considering an offender, who has to be treated differently. That emphasises my worries about professionalism in the judicial system.
  In the 1960s, I had the pleasure of listening to a barrister whose name was Freddy Beeton. It is possible that one other hon. Member who is present might have heard of him. He was a well-known barrister in Leeds and he spoke to the Leeds trades council, a body of trade unionists. I was a shop steward and I went to listen to him. He spoke about the proposed move to introduce majority verdicts in the jury trial system. He was vehemently opposed to that. When he had finished speaking, the Leeds trades council decided to write to the Home Secretary of the day to say that we would not support such a move.
  Freddy Beeton made another comment that I found interesting and have not forgotten. He said that the professional prejudices in the jurisprudence system would return because an anxiety for costs drove the system, especially when increasing numbers of ordinary people opted for trial by jury because they believed that they might get a better deal. He warned us by saying that, in 20 years, proposals to cut down the number of options for the right to trial by jury would be introduced. He was wrong about the time scale; it is now 40 years later, but the proposals are before us. Another pound of flesh is being requested from the judicial system. That disturbs me enormously.
  944
  If we concentrate exclusively on the justice system, I cannot imagine how anyone could present an argument that would be detrimental to people's rights to exercise a wider choice for trial by jury. Rather than make observations against the diminution of the right to trial by jury, I would much rather make a case for its expansion. Perhaps the Home Secretary should consider that.
  Despite all the attacks on the moves to reduce people's rights and the jury system, I notice that crime rates continue to rise and that the effectiveness of crime prevention seems not to be enhanced by further diminutions of the rights of people in the judicial system. The case that has been made against the Home Secretary's proposals is of such quality that, if tonight's decision were based on the evidence and made openly by a jury, its members would walk into the Lobby to support the amendment tabled by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews). That is where I shall stand. I thank the House for listening to my remarks.
  8.21 pm
  Sir Nicholas Lyell: I shall be brief. I compliment the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West (Mr. Best) on a speech that could hardly have put the case better. My approach is very much the same and, although I suspect that we disagree on a number of political matters, on this we agree strongly.
  The debate involves three issues. Fundamentally, it is about liberty and the liberties of the subjects of the United Kingdom who live in England and Wales—I shall not discuss Scotland because the system is different. It is also about confidence in our criminal justice system and, to some extent, efficiency and cost, although I very much doubt whether the Bill will achieve many cost savings should it be forced through.
  Liberty is the key point, and the right to elect for jury trial is one of this country's great liberties. The most serious offences—murder, manslaughter and a number of others—have to go to jury trial, but either-way offences do not. They are huge in number and run up to some serious offences. Almost always, they deal with either violence or a significant element of dishonesty. There are some 369 categories and at least 700 offences, and there may be a great many more.
  Jury trial means that the citizens of this country have the right to be tried not by a professionally appointed member of the judiciary or an appointed member of the magistracy—I have the highest regard for the magistracy, as I shall explain—but by their peers. A random group of 12 ordinary men and women from all walks of life is brought together to consider a particular case, and probably a small number of others, over a fortnight, but they do not sit day in, day out judging such matters professionally.
  I must declare my interest, obviously. I have been a barrister for 30 years, I am a recorder, I was a Law Officer for 10 years, I am the son of a barrister and High Court judge and my late stepmother was a magistrate for 25 years and chairman of the bench in Dacorum. [Interruption.] I see the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. McWalter) in his place. I must have appeared hundreds of times in the magistrates court in my early days and a great many times in the Crown court, although I do not make my money there any more—except, from time to time, as a recorder.

  945
  The quality of justice in the magistrates court is very high and I am the strongest supporter of our 29,000 magistrates, but they should recognise the danger that erosion such as that provided for by the Bill will encourage erosion in their area. However, that is a different matter. One has to say that, for a number of reasons, the quality of justice in the Crown court is of a higher order, not because jurors are better people than magistrates—they know less than magistrates and have less experience—but because cases are better prepared when they get to the Crown court. As has been rightly said, there is much fuller disclosure. There is also time for the police and the Crown Prosecution Service to make much fuller disclosures, for legal advisers to consider the matter, for evidence to be gathered and for advice to be taken.
  It is not a criticism of the system that those who elect for trial by jury subsequently plead guilty in the Crown court. That is not a matter of wasted costs, but of saving costs. At least they and society know that those cases have been carefully considered and, by the time that they decide to plead guilty, all the proper avenues have been gone through.
  I want to say something that may be thought to be more controversial and more critical, but is certainly not intended to be. I have personal experience of cases that were tried and rightly acquitted in the Crown court. I say rightly acquitted because I was convinced that either the person was innocent or the case was at least not proven. I have in mind examples from my experience as an advocate and as a recorder, when I watched cases being tried, and I cannot say with confidence that those people would necessarily have been acquitted in the magistrates court. That is not a criticism of the magistrates, but the system is more careful, more thought through and more balanced in the Crown court. In the Crown court we put ourselves before ordinary men and women who think frightfully carefully, and I have great admiration for the jury system and the seriousness with which jurors play their part. That provides a higher system of justice and one in which we can have the greatest confidence.
  What will happen if we go down the route suggested by the Bill in matters of cost and efficiency? I do not believe that it will have the good effect that is intended. I am not naive enough to say that there are no semi-professional criminals who do not play the system. Of course there are. Accused persons elect for trial partly to serve their time in custody in less harsh and more open conditions on remand. There is an element of abuse there—I fully accept that—but those people will play whatever system we have. They will certainly try to play the system that the Government propose to introduce.
  There will be a ping-pong match. Such people will elect for trial by jury, but that will be refused because they have a number of previous convictions and the case seems to be unmeritorious. They will therefore appeal to the Crown court judge. They will certainly make sure that their lawyers demand an oral hearing; if, as a result of the oral hearing, the matter is none the less heard in the magistrates court, it is highly likely that they will ask for it to be fought in the magistrates court.
  I think that far more than 2,000 cases will be involved. I think that the hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews) was much nearer the mark when he said that there would be several thousand. Many people, having been convicted in the magistrates court,
  946
  will then seek to appeal. If they are in custody the position will change, but they will nevertheless seek to appeal, and that will involve more time and more money.
  Let us return to the question of one, two or three-day contested cases in the magistrates court. It is difficult to find time for the hearing of such cases; it seriously upsets the existing system, and it will undoubtedly lead to increased costs. In such cases, people will demand more discovery. They will demand adjournments for more discovery. They will expect advocates—indeed, they will rightly expect legally aided advocates—to defend them in the magistrates court. Although the costs of hearing such cases in the magistrates court will be less than those in the Crown court, because it will not be necessary to pay for the jurors and the extra accommodation, they will be significantly more than the average cost in the magistrates court.
  The truth is that the Government do not know what the costs will be. As I am sure that the Minister knows, last June I tabled a series of questions that I had thought through carefully. The answers, which he will know as well as I do, show that the Government do not have the material at their disposal to be able to calculate the costs accurately. I think that the more recent figures that I have been given are at best educated guesses; in my view, they are significant underestimates. The bottom line is that we will not see much saving, but will see a considerable diminution in the quality of justice and in our liberties.
  I respect those who take a different view from mine as much as I respect those who take the same view. I have read carefully what the Lord Chief Justice thinks, and would say only—with great respect to the Lord Chief Justice—that I consider the freedom to be tried by one's peers to be too precious for us to attempt to judge these matters narrowly. I believe that we would be wise to hold back and to refrain from adopting the course in which he believes.
  I was probably the chief influence for the fact that Lord Runciman led the last royal commission. I thought it an excellent commission, but on this specific matter I beg to differ with its views. I had great respect for Lord Justice James, who prosecuted in the case of the great train robbers and produced a very similar report in about 1973. Nevertheless, I do not think that they reached the right conclusion.
  Jury trial is one of our great liberties. It is one of the foundations of our democracy, as is the right to choose. When he gave his lighthearted example involving a bottle of champagne, the Home Secretary said that he would choose to go before the magistrates. That is his right, but he, and all other citizens, should also have the right to choose to go before a jury in the whole spectrum of cases in which honesty and dishonesty are involved. If we remove than right, we reduce our liberties; we should not do so.
  8.32 pm
  Mr. Mark Fisher: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-West (Mr. Best), and unlike the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell)—and, I think, every other Member who has spoken—I have no legal interests to declare. I am not a lawyer, I am not a magistrate, and I have never even served on a jury. I therefore listened to the Home Secretary's

  947
  original explanation of why he had introduced the Bill—or, rather, its predecessor, the Criminal Justice (Mode of Trial) Bill—in what was as near to a state of grace, or at least of ignorance, as is possible, albeit for someone who remembers the 1986 White Paper that discussed the issues, and the attempt by the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) to introduce a similar measure as Home Secretary in 1997.
  Both were seen off by widespread opposition. In 1997, it was led by my right hon. Friend the present Home Secretary, who launched a forceful attack on the proposals. On that occasion, my right hon. Friend persuaded me that he was absolutely right—and, indeed, persuaded every other member of the Labour Opposition. As I recall, he was cheered to the echo for his attack on the then Home Secretary.
  As a layman, I have not been aware of anything substantially wrong with the right to elect trial by jury. In nearly 17 years as a Member of Parliament, I have not received a single letter complaining about that right. I wonder if any Member has ever received such a letter; I rather doubt it. I am, however, aware of the good principle behind jury trials that, if one of us is accused by the state of a serious crime, the right to be judged by a random selection of our fellow citizens is very precious. That may explain why the right to elect trial by jury is so important. If we are to change that right, the case has to be proved overwhelmingly. Neither the previous Home Secretary nor the present Home Secretary has produced an overwhelming case.
  Mr. Tony McWalter: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Fisher: No. We are short of time. I shall try to speak for less than 15 minutes to allow other hon. Members to get in.
  I was persuaded by the Home Secretary's argument that any justice system can be improved and that we should not be against change just because it was change. I am not against change, but I ask whether the Bill proposes the right change to give better justice, rather than, for example, proposing recategorisation of offences between summary and committal?
  Therefore, as I listened to the Home Secretary's supporting arguments today, I had an open mind. He was generous in giving way to hon. Members. It is difficult to deny that his speech was more concerned with attacking his critics than giving a strong explanation and defence of the Bill, but he was brought to the point by my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), who asked whether he could tell us what the Bill was about. He said concisely, "It is about cheaper justice and better justice." He said exactly that. She asked, "Will it save money, or give better justice?" He said that it would do both.
  On whether the Bill will give cheaper justice, I agree with my hon. Friends the Members for Bristol, East (Jean Corston) and for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore): Governments are always concerned about saving money, but, on such an issue to do with our justice system, it should be the lowest priority, not a prime consideration.
  948
  Like other hon. Members, I am baffled as to what money the Bill will save. I had not heard the figure of £128 million before the explanatory notes were published. I cannot see any detailed audit or explanation of where the money is being saved. Perhaps it is being saved in the prison system, but that is not the way to improve the prison system. We should find other ways to save money.
  Probably the figure is a guesstimate. Perhaps it has to be a guesstimate in the nature of things, but the savings argument is not a strong case. As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews) said, the figure probably ignores the undoubted cost of more appeals; there will be more appeals. Whether his or the Government's figure is correct, people will appeal if they have the right to do so—as they must have—so I wonder where the savings will be and where the hard evidence of savings is. However, I am certain that savings should not be what the Bill is about.
  The Home Secretary was on better ground when he said that the Bill would give better justice, but again I was not sure what he meant. Surely, he did not mean better justice in the sense of better judgments. That would be an aspersion on the Crown courts. I suspect that he meant better administration of justice.
  Again, is that a sufficient reason for making what is a fundamental change? Everyone wants an efficiently administered system, but the Bill goes to a fundamental right. To introduce it in the interests of better administration seems a very narrow and constrained ambition for such a Bill. Indeed, it is an ambition that seems to have been refuted by the Government's own 1998 consultative paper on either-way cases, which showed that, in the past 10 years, the proportion of such cases going to the Crown court had decreased. In 1987, 53 per cent. of cases were in that category and now only 28 per cent. are. If we want a more efficient system, we seem to be getting one.
  The Home Secretary has a good point about abuse of the system. If he wants to create a better and better-administered system that squeezes out abuse, everyone will support him. Nevertheless, people will try to get the best out of any of the world's legal systems, and, particularly if those systems threaten the liberty of human beings, they will try to work the system. If it is an abuse to try to seek the best for oneself in protecting one's liberty, there will always be abuses. It is in human nature to try to protect oneself. However, I suspect that there are better ways than those proposed in the Bill of attacking abuse—such as by making greater use of plea before venue and recategorisation—and of creating greater clarity in the administrative system.
  Therefore, the Home Secretary did not prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that, on grounds of cost, time and abuse, we should alter the system as the Bill proposes.
  As I said, I am not lawyer and have no legal background. I therefore thought that I should consult my constituents on the Bill. I certainly did not want not to support my Government—whom I am proud to support—without knowing my constituents' thoughts on the Bill. I therefore approached all 14 firms of solicitors in my constituency, the chairman of the magistrates bench, the clerk and as many magistrates as I could contact. This is what they replied.

  949
  Mr. Eric Hodgkinson—who is president of the North Staffordshire Law Society, but stressed that he was replying in a personal capacity, rather than as a partner of Bowcock and Pursaill—said:
  I consider that the present arrangements as regards the right for an accused to insist upon trial by jury should not be interfered with. The right to trial by jury should not be sacrificed on the alter of expense.
  Mr. Steven Park, of Park and Co., said:
  I am most concerned. I do not believe that the present system is being abused. The biggest delay in getting cases into the Crown court is on the part of the prosecution preparing their committal file.
  I expected the magistrates and their clerk to be enthusiastic about the Bill, which would increase their responsibilities and their work. Indeed, the clerk was enthusiastic about it. When I asked whether he would be able to cope with the presumably greater load on courts—the number of courts in North Staffordshire has been reduced considerably in recent years—he said that he thought that there was no technical reason why they could not cope with the Bill's consequences.
  Interestingly, however, and to my surprise, both the chairman and the magistrates whom he brought with him to the meeting were very cautious and uncertain about the provisions. Although they agreed that they could cope with the changes, they said that the process was speeding up regardless, particularly because of the recent pilot scheme in which North Staffordshire was chosen as one of the five areas to participate. Although they could not give me any figures, their view was that the majority of either-way cases were already being dealt with in the magistrates court.
  One thing on which everyone I consulted agreed was that they could not understand why the Government were proposing the changes now, rather than waiting for the review of the criminal justice system that they themselves established. The review is chaired by Sir Robin Auld and will report later this year. Both magistrates and solicitors in my constituency said that, until they saw the exact scope of Sir Robin's report, we should not be tackling this one, small—albeit very important—part of the criminal justice system. They thought that we should first have the benefit of that overall review of the criminal justice system—much of which they thought could be improved.
  Why are we dealing with one tiny sphere of the justice system, comprising perhaps 5 or 6 per cent. of all cases, when we shall soon have the benefit of Sir Robin's views and report on the overall system? After we receive that report on the broader context, we shall be better able to judge whether the proposed changes are sensible.
  The Home Secretary's reply to that point was deeply confusing and unimpressive. He said that Sir Robin had already obtained an answer on the point because he had consulted High Court judges. I presume that Sir Robin will consult more people, and a wider range of people, than only High Court judges. Furthermore, we should not anticipate what the Auld report will say. We should wait for it, and then consider possibly much wider reform of the overall justice system. We should then perhaps place particular emphasis on recategorisation, which has helped us in the past, and probably could be beneficial in future.
  I was certainly persuaded by the Home Secretary's speech—but it was the speech that he gave in 1997. That speech was much more persuasive than the one that he gave today. Therefore, with regret, I shall today be
  950
  supporting not the Government, but the reasoned amendment tabled by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Medway.
  8.45 pm
  Mr. David Davis: It is always a privilege and a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher). I could not agree more with everything that he said. I, too, shall support the reasoned amendment. Like him, I entered the debate with some trepidation, as a non-lawyer, but I considered being called a Hampstead liberal sufficient provocation for someone of my interests to take part. When listening to a debate that appeared to be between the technocrats and the lawyers, I was uncomfortable to find myself on the side of the lawyers. I have now redefined the debate as being between the Treasury and the libertarians, and I am on the libertarians' side.
  The Home Secretary clearly has a case for dealing with this aspect of the judicial system. He knows that I share some of his views, as set out in the National Audit Office report a few weeks ago. There is a real problem with the criminal justice system. It is the least joined-up aspect of government. That arises partly from the necessary independence of components of that system. That is unavoidable. However, it also arises from the manipulation of the system by criminals and lawyers, each for their own ends. The management of our judicial system has historically been slack, bordering on the slapdash.
  The cost of the current system, which processes about 2 million people, is £9 billion a year. The process is undoubtedly inefficient. I could give the House dozens of statistics, but I shall not, given the limited time. The easiest proof can be found by looking at the variation in the amount of time that even magistrates courts—we have heard a lot of good about them this evening—take in dealing with cases: from 30 to more than 90 days on less serious cases, and between 60 and well over 100 days on serious cases. That is driven by the fact that they have up to 2.6 million adjournments a year, each of which ranges from one to 101 days.
  Some 40 per cent. of adjournments are driven by errors and omissions on the part of the various players in the system. Many of them are significantly influenced by Government rules or agencies. I found an example of one police force that turned out 80 per cent. of the prosecution files late or of inadequate quality. That is hardly acceptable. One quarter of the adjournments were caused by defendants failing to attend. Almost another quarter were caused by a defence solicitor. I know that the Home Secretary is doing something about that. Another 15 per cent. were caused by defendants in custody being delivered late. That is hardly acceptable. More than 10 per cent. were caused by problems with advance information. There are similar problems in the Crown courts, leading to costs in each case—£41 million for the magistrates courts and £40 million for the Crown courts. There are serious management problems.
  The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 brought into effect various measures to correct much of that. The pilot studies that we have heard about and the Narey report have brought down hearing times by 45 days in one of the six areas affected. However, that system went national only last November—barely three months ago.

  951
  There is a great deal wrong and a great deal is being done to put it right, but in the midst of all that good work the Home Secretary has introduced this ill-considered measure. The proposal to remove the right of election for trial by jury in each-way cases is seriously flawed technically, as well as striking at what is without hyperbole called a foundation stone of British liberty.
  Let us deal first with the supposed savings. When the Bill was being debated in the other place, we were told that the savings were £105 million. Now we are told that the figure is £128 million. There has been no explanation of that difference. A large proportion of the savings come from a reduction in sentences, which I am not comfortable with when assessing the value of the measure. Those in the other place were also told that there would be no loss of public service jobs. I spend a lot of my time looking at supposed economies in government, and those two claims strike me as inconsistent. I find the proposal implausible in financial terms.
  We must remember the size of the costs that we are discussing—£9 billion a year. We are now talking about £128 million, of which a small fraction would be within the judicial system per se. We will never know whether these illusory savings are actually made. Even if they were, if we had to choose between money and justice, surely we would choose justice every time. The case thus falls apart.
  A more important component—to which the Home Secretary referred implicitly when he talked about the better administration of justice—is the problem of delay versus justice, or delay versus fairness. We all understand that justice delayed is, in a sense, justice denied, but if we had to choose between delay and fairness, we would again choose fairness on every occasion.
  The Home Secretary talked about time-wasting activities that are undertaken by some people, and that the Bill aims to eradicate. The primary problem of the system about which I take the right hon. Gentleman to be talking is the so-called "cracked trials"—the one third of Crown court trials that fail to go ahead on the day, very largely because of guilty pleas at the door of the court. To be fair, preparation for these trials costs £29 million.
  I do believe that hardened criminals play the system, and the reason for that derives directly from the way in which the system is operated. The hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews) pointed out earlier that the practice of reducing the charge en route to the Crown court occurs in fully half of the cases. That procedure is guaranteed to get the case-hardened criminal to go to the Crown court—it is a way of reducing the charge against him. We have put an incentive into the system, in the behaviour patterns of the Crown Prosecution Service. We should put that right before we even think about such a Bill as this.
  We have a higher tariff for defendants who change their plea late in the process—that came in under the last Government. That ought to deter anyone from playing the system—either to delay or to spend some expected sentence in a softer remand prison. The evidence is that that is having an effect, hence the reduction in the numbers of each-way cases going to the Crown courts. However, it is not having as big an effect as the Home Secretary or I would like.
  952
  The survey evidence, repeated in the NAO report, shows clearly that many defendants either do not understand or do not believe that they get the tariff. That should be put right also before we even consider this Bill. That could be done by increasing the tariff, as Lady Kennedy argued in the other place, particularly for those with numerous previous convictions—the group we are trying to target in this ill-targeted Bill. Most particularly, it could be done by requiring clear notification to the defendant of the consequences before the election and plea.
  If we stop the overcharging mechanism and fix and communicate the steeper tariff, we may dramatically reduce the playing of the system. Had the Home Secretary tried to address that and allowed time for us to see the consequences, I might have been more sympathetic towards the Bill.
  I view the right to jury trial as a foundation stone of our civil liberties, but I am not starry-eyed about it. It is not perfect, as many Members would agree. It undoubtedly leads sometimes to the guilty going free. There is no doubt about that. Sometimes—very infrequently—it leads to worse cases of an innocent defendant being found guilty. As an aside, if magistrates courts considered the sort of cases that appear before Crown courts, they would face similar problems of miscarriages of justice. However, the jury system is a better method of delivering justice than any other. That is why jury trials are expensive. They are, by nature, more thorough. They are a near-ideal balance between the professional skill and experience of the judge and counsel and the clear-eyed common sense of ordinary citizen jurors.
  Mr. McWalter: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the delay to which the process is liable has the potential for seasoned criminals to try to put pressure on witnesses to withdraw? That is a significant aspect and the Bill seeks to address it.
  Mr. Davis: First, such pressure is rare, and secondly, if it worked, 60 per cent. of defendants would not plead guilty at the door of the court—they would go through it with their intimidated witnesses. Thirdly, and most importantly, my argument is that we should try every other mechanism first to reduce the number of manipulations of the system before we throw away a fundamental civil liberty. That is what the Bill will do.
  The jury trial is a better mechanism, but that is not to say that magistrates do not do a very good job. The proceedings of jury trials are carefully recorded and the procedures are carefully designed. While we are on the subject, those procedures have improved after every miscarriage of justice, but the reforms that have arisen from that process have not necessarily had the same impact on the magistrates court. It is not a criticism of individual magistrates to say that the jury trial procedure is better—it is more expensive and ponderous, but it delivers a high quality of justice.
  My concern is not with the 60 per cent. who eventually plead guilty—we can reduce that figure by other methods—but with those people who go on to face trial by jury and who might not have that option under these proposals. We should not swallow the presumption that has been floated today that all those who elect for jury

  953
  trial are playing the system. Some are, but a significant number are not. We should remember that almost 40 per cent. of those who eventually go to trial are acquitted. Those people will face the prospect of real and perceived injustice under the Bill.
  Trial by jury may not go back to the Magna Carta or Henry II's Clarendon fields. In fact, its original roots date back to Anglo-Saxon times, but we need not worry about that. The system that we are talking about today has been in place for 150 years and it is stable.
  Mr. Straw: Could the right hon. Gentleman explain why he believes that because there is an acquittal rate of 40 per cent.—it is a little higher than that—in the Crown court, it would lead to manifest injustice if the magistrates court were to deal with those cases? Many of the cases would still be heard in the Crown court, but in wholly contested cases in the magistrates courts, there is an acquittal rate of about 33 per cent. If one takes account of relative seriousness and complexity, there is little difference in acquittal rates in magistrates courts compared with the Crown court.
  Mr. Davis: The Home Secretary misses my point. Actually, 38 per cent. of each-way cases are acquitted, and my point was that those people were not just a group of manipulators of the system. My other point is that jury trial is a fundamental civil right. It is the right of the British citizen in an each-way case to choose the more thorough process, in the reasonable belief that that will give him more opportunity of being proven innocent. It is those people about whom I am concerned.
  The current arrangements go back almost 150 years. They have been in place longer than universal suffrage, and nobody calls that ill-founded. We should not remove that foundation stone without great care and without testing every other option first. That requires more care than has preceded the Bill.
  There is a natural tendency in all Governments to be authoritarian. That tendency becomes more pronounced as time passes. However, the proper and natural role of the House is to defend the civil liberties of citizens. We shall do that today by supporting the amendment.
  9 pm
  Ms Hazel Blears: I am delighted to follow the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis), who adopted a very managerial approach to some of the judicial system's problems. He noted, in the context of the Narey report, that some people think that justice and managing the system are contradictory. However, I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that managing the system properly is vital to making it more efficient.
  The contribution from the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden contained many sensible suggestions, but it missed the point. I believe that the Bill is right in principle. It transfers the decision about the venue for a trial from the defendant to the court. Defendants should not have the right to veto, on the basis of their personal interests, the venue in which the trial will take place. It is right that the court should decide, in an objective, transparent and straightforward way, the right venue for the charge that has been brought. The court will hear representations on the matter and will have to give its reasons for its decision, which will be subject to appeal.
  954
  That is the right way to proceed, as it allows an objective decision to be made, whereas the current system allows one side of the case the right to veto the decision.
  Mr. Nick Hawkins: As a Labour Member talking about principles, does the hon. Lady feel comfortable arguing a case that is the opposite to the one being put by organisations such as Liberty and Justice?
  Ms Blears: I can tell the hon. Gentleman that I have been a member of Liberty for many years. However, I represent a constituency that has suffered tremendously from crime and disorder in recent years. In some respects, my community has lost faith in the criminal justice system. My duty as a constituency Member of Parliament to represent my community weighs more heavily with me than the pursuit of self-interest that has been the main concern of organisations that are dominated by the legal profession.
  Dr. Lynne Jones: How will the Bill help the community whose concerns my hon. Friend rightly wishes to represent? For example, how will it help victims of crime?
  Ms Blears: I strongly believe that the Bill will tackle the problems of delay and manipulation by experienced criminals. As a result, the confidence of victims and witnesses in our system of justice will be increased, as they will know that the process can no longer be manipulated by experienced criminals simply stringing out trials for their own self-interest. That is an important point.
  The changes proposed in the Bill will mean that it is for magistrates to determine the appropriate venue for trial, in light of the circumstances of the offence. I agree with the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), who is no longer in his place, that balance in the criminal justice system is crucial. However, I believe that the balance at present errs on the side of the defendant, rather than in favour any of the other parties involved.
  At the moment, defendants choose where they will be tried. Home Office research shows that nine out of 10 of those electing Crown court trial have previous convictions, that five out of 10 have three or more previous convictions, and that two out of every 10 have in excess of 10 previous convictions. Most of those who plead not guilty and elect for Crown court trial end up pleading guilty when their cases are finally heard.
  No one who has heard the debate can deny that some defendants manipulate the system to delay their eventual sentences. Perhaps stupidly, they are even prepared to risk a heavier sentence in the Crown court if by doing so they can remain on bail, at liberty, for a few more weeks or months. It is a sad fact that some defendants hope that witnesses will not come forward if there is a delay, or that they will be intimidated and not give evidence, with the result that the defendants will be allowed to go free.
  Research has also shown that 27 per cent. of defendants who plead not guilty and elect for Crown court trial intend to plead guilty later. That means that nearly 6,000 cases are a complete sham from start to finish. It means that the full machinery of the Crown court system has to be put into action. Victims and police are involved, witnesses are

  955
  warned and a great deal of money is spent—when, in 6,000 cases, the defendant knows from the outset that he intends to plead guilty to the offences charged.
  I have a couple of examples from my city. They are not from a royal commission or any theoretical report but are real-life cases that have taken place in Salford in the past 12 months. In one case, two defendants were charged with possession of a class B controlled drug, cannabis. The date of the charge was 5 May 1998. They were found in possession and charged with possession. The matter was committed to the Crown court on 13 November 1998. They had a plea and direction hearing a month later. Four prosecution witnesses were made absolute and, on 10 June 1999—seven months later—the defendants appeared before the Crown court at Manchester. All prosecution witnesses were in attendance—police officers not patrolling the streets of Salford but stuck in the Crown court because they had been called to appear. The defendants changed their pleas to guilty; they were each fined £100, and that was the end of the matter. The case took 13 months to dispose of, all the witnesses were in attendance and, at the end of the day, the defendants were each fined £100.
  The second case involved indecent assault on a female under 16. The date of the charge was 20 April 1998. Nine prosecution witnesses were made absolute in July of that year, including young people who had to give evidence. The trial was set for 2 December 1998. All nine prosecution witnesses attended, including police officers. The defendant changed his plea from not guilty to guilty. No jury was sworn. The case took 26 weeks to be dealt with, an enormous amount of police time was wasted and the distress and anguish caused to the witnesses was considerable.
  My third example is a little closer to home. A young man reached into a parked vehicle on a garage forecourt and stole a handbag. He committed that offence on 25 July 1998. It took a year to deal with him in the Crown court. Five prosecution witnesses attended and were sworn.
  That example is close to my heart, because last year I was the victim of the same offence. A young man stole my handbag from my car. I chased him for 400 yd. I shouted, "Stop, thief, I'm a Member of Parliament," but that did not seem to have much effect. He jumped over a 7 ft wall and, as can be imagined, I was not able to follow him. A month later I identified him on an identification parade. He arrived with his solicitor and said, "She'll never pick me out," but despite his having shaved off his hair, I managed to identify him. He then took the case all the way to the Crown court. It took seven months to resolve. Witnesses were warned and appeared, and on the day of the hearing he pleaded guilty to the offence against me and asked for 30 other similar offences to be taken into consideration, including robbing Bev Callard of "Coronation Street". I am glad to say that he was dealt with very severely.
  Those are examples of what is happening week in, week out, month in, month out, up and down this country, when defendants play the system.
  In my view, this is not a cost-driven measure. If we save £100 million, all well and good. But this measure has been introduced because it is the right thing to do.
  956
  I have discussed the matter with the chief constable of Greater Manchester, who said that the provisions are likely to save him about £2 million in wasted police time. Greater Manchester is about to get 378 extra police officers, and I want them on front-line policing duties, not tied up in the Crown court on the sort of wasted cases that I have described.
  Dr. Lynne Jones: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Ms Blears: No, because time is limited, and I know that other hon. Members want to contribute.
  There are genuine concerns about the possibility of more cases being dealt with by magistrates. They already hear 90 per cent. of cases, and the appeal rate is very low. I do not for one minute believe that magistrates will suddenly want to hear cases that it is inappropriate for them to deal with. I think that it was Lord Justice Bingham who said that magistrates are respectful of the Crown court. In fact, they are deferential to the Crown court, so I do not think that they will take on very serious cases.
  I would like to see improvements to the magistracy, irrespective of the changes proposed in the Bill. We need more representative magistrates, particularly in inner cities. Three wards in my constituency have no magistrates at all. The majority of them come from the better off, affluent areas of the city, and we have a responsibility to recruit more representative magistrates. They need more training, and we need more consistency in sentencing. We should recruit more stipendiary magistrates, who offer quicker and more efficient justice and who are not intimidated by lawyers—prosecution or defence—or heavily influenced by the police.
  I am pleased that improving the criminal justice system is a top priority for the Government. Tackling crime is fundamental to making communities such as Salford safer for people to live in, for businesses to locate in and for people to bring up their families in. In some areas, we must acknowledge, there is a criminal culture. Theft and burglary have become a way of life, and experienced criminals prey on the most vulnerable people.
  We have set tough targets for reducing crime, we are providing extra police officers and we have anti-burglary initiatives. All that is welcome, but we must ensure that people have confidence in the criminal justice system. Witnesses must feel safe if they come forward. It is disastrous when they are forced to wait for months to give their evidence, only for the trial to collapse at the last minute. That will not encourage them to come forward again.
  Hon. Members are properly concerned about the fundamental rights of defendants, but I must ask them to think about the rights to freedom that many of my constituents have lost as a result of the tidal wave of crime that has swept over them in recent years. All of us—victims, witnesses, defendants and the wider community—have a stake in the criminal justice system. We need always to strike the right balance, and the Bill will bring fairness, objectivity and transparency into the system. It will reduce delay and manipulation by experienced criminals. The right of appeal on venue and the general right of appeal will safeguard defendants' positions.

  957
  I shall vote for the Bill because I believe that it is another step forward in our battle against crime. It will help to make the criminal justice system swift, effective and fair to everyone. I urge hon. Members to support it.
  9.12 pm
  Mr. Douglas Hogg: Like several hon. Members, I declare an interest as a practising member of the Bar. I come from a family long associated with the law. It happens that both my sisters are members of the judiciary—one a judge, the other a magistrate. I therefore come to the debate with some baggage.
  I have a lot of sympathy with the Home Secretary. My criticisms of him are perhaps less dramatic than those made by some of his hon. Friends. That said, I think that he is wrong. Over the years, I have been rather attracted by propositions of the sort that he advanced, but I have always recoiled from them in the end because they do not satisfy the proper requirements of justice. In truth, as the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West (Mr. Best) said, the sense of the debate has gone against the Home Secretary. If a decision were genuinely to be made on the basis of what had been said in the House, there would be no doubt that the Bill would fail.
  I shall begin with two preliminary points. I am extremely cautious—indeed, wholly unpersuaded—on cost. The figures are extremely suspect. For example, if the appeal against a decision to allow a jury trial means anything—I suspect that it does not, and that it will exist only on paper—there will be a great many appeals, which will be extremely expensive. In addition, if the Bill proceeds, I suspect that there will be many more appeals against conviction to the Crown court. Those two considerations lead one to suppose that the figures on costs with which we have been supplied are defective. In any event, they are not particularly relevant. Unlike the hon. Member for Salford (Ms Blears), I am sure that the Bill is Treasury driven, and I have had some experience of spotting such Bills. It should not be so. We should not determine this matter on the basis of cost—the real motive causing the Government to advance the Bill.
  My second preliminary point, which does not go to the substance of the matter, is the criterion of reputation, to which justices ought to have regard when determining whether a trial by jury should be allowed. If we are to have the Bill, justices should have regard to the impact on a person's reputation of refusing or allowing a jury trial. However, the Bill prohibits that. If it is so offensive for reputation criteria to be enshrined in the Bill, we should not have the Bill; the matter simply comes down to that.
  In relation to the substance of the Bill, I make a proposition that is self-evident: a conviction—especially for dishonesty—can be wholly disastrous for a person of good character. We should therefore be slow to remove the protection that such persons enjoy.
  The Home Secretary expostulated when I intervened during his speech to make a point about the character of the judiciary—of which I have considerable experience. Labour Members constantly made that point in opposition, although, curiously, few of them make it now. If one spends a long time exposed to criminal courts, one develops a certain attitude of mind. If one spends a lifetime listening to dishonest explanations of what people get up to, one develops a predisposition in favour of the prosecution. There is nothing odd about that.
  958
  I spent many years in the criminal courts, so I know that that is true. I have often thought that the judiciary—lay or professional—had a predisposition in favour of the prosecution, but seldom in favour of the defence.
  Mr. McWalter: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that that might be directly related to the fact that members of the judiciary work closely with the police and that often, after a long and difficult investigation, they do not want to let down the police?
  Mr. Hogg: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I am grateful to him because he supports what I am saying. I am not making a criticism; I merely point out that we need to face life as it is. There is a risk of a predisposition in favour of the prosecution within the judiciary—whether lay or professional.
  The role of the jury is to prevent that predisposition from doing injury to defendants. That is why I attach such high importance to juries. By definition, there are no juries in magistrates courts to redress that predisposition—although, of course, there are juries in Crown courts.
  Although I have the greatest respect for stipendiary magistrates—they do an extremely good job and I should like to see more of them—that does not alter the fact that a stipendiary sits alone and is the only person to make judgments as to fact, honesty and so on. If that person has a predisposition in favour of the prosecution, the defendant is in serious trouble. When I was a young man at the Bar, I knew several stipendiary magistrates to whom my comments would have applied.
  Incidentally, the processes in the magistrates courts, especially on determining the admissibility of evidence—the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) spoke to that point—and on disclosure, tend to mean that the trial is less satisfactory for the defence.
  I am concerned about the predisposition in favour of the prosecution among some members of the judiciary—I make no distinction between lay and professional members.
  I ask the House to consider some related points. Our jury system is diverse—in ethnic mix, age, background, experience and so on. The hon. Member for Lewisham, East (Ms Prentice) shakes her head, so I shall make a concession. The magistracy is better than it was. When I first went to the Bar years ago, it was a very middle class and professionally oriented organisation. It is better than it was, but it is not as diverse as the jury system. The professional judiciary most certainly is not.
  Many of the questions that juries or the judiciary have to determine in a criminal case are very much questions that ordinary people are perhaps best suited to answer because of their own experience of the ordinary events of life that give rise to criminal actions. For example, the cases relate to what has happened in a street, pub or supermarket. Juries have to consider whether provocation existed and was likely to cause someone to act in the way that he did. They consider whether a degree of force was reasonable and whether people could really believe that something happened in the circumstances described. Ordinary people, drawing on their experience of ordinary life, are perhaps better placed to answer such questions than the judiciary, either lay or professional. I am anxious not to remove the protection that the jury system provides.

  959
  Finally, I wish to make an unusual point that the House should take into account. In a small number of cases, the elements in the charge are established but, for one reason or another, it would be unconscionable to convict. For example, there may have been a high degree of provocation that fell short of lawful justification. That can happen in assault cases and in cases dealing with sexual offences. In another type of case, the offence may be intrinsically trivial, but the consequences may be dire. Therefore, a conviction would be unconscionable.
  In such cases, a jury serves as the public conscience in a way that the members of the lay or professional judiciary—I include myself in this—would find difficult. We are attuned to applying the law more strictly than a member of a jury would. He would have more regard to the broader interest and the public conscience test that I just mentioned. I would be very reluctant to see the jury trials system withdrawn in the sense that we are debating.
  Mr. David Taylor: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman perhaps guilty of smearing magistrates by associating them with the professional lawyers? He has suggested that, because some of judiciary might be somewhat detached from the realities of everyday life, so are magistrates because they fall within his umbrella definition of professional people in the legal system.
  Mr. Hogg: I have smeared no one. I have made no distinction for these purposes between the lay magistracy and the professional judiciary.
  Mr. Taylor: The hon. and learned Gentleman should.
  Mr. Hogg: No, I should not. I am drawing on years of personal and vicarious experience and I venture to say that there is not much dispute on these matters among those who really know about them. If one spends a long time in a criminal court, one is likely—if not certain—to develop a predisposition in favour of the prosecution. The hon. Gentleman should talk to the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. McWalter), because he agrees with me.
  I have a lot of sympathy for the Home Secretary. I understand that he is an honourable man who is dealing with a problem that causes anxiety. However, he would be well advised to reflect on the fact that he has derived very little support from those who have spoken in the debate. He will derive very little support in the other place and his Bill has already been defeated there. That is not coincidence. The plain truth is that the sense of the House is that the Bill is unfair and will diminish the justice administered in this country. I hope that the Home Secretary will reflect on what has been said tonight.
  9.25 pm
  Mr. David Kidney: I am relieved to have the opportunity to explain why I oppose the Bill. My objection is based on principle, and not the details to which many hon. Members have referred during the debate. I summarise that point of principle as follows: this is a Bill from a mighty Government to weaken one of the bulwarks of our liberties that protect us from the acts of some future over-mighty Government.
  960
  I realise that I am open to the same accusation of self-interest that is faced by many other hon. Members—for 20 years before election to the House I was a solicitor, and I practised regularly in the magistrates court and even presented cases in the Crown court before a judge. I declare an interest in that I am a non-practising solicitor, because I have left that behind me.
  My 20 years' experience leaves me with great respect and admiration for the magistrates court and the Crown court as means of delivering criminal justice. However, I had to write letters of advice to any of my clients who had the opportunity to decide whether to consent to a trial in the magistrates court or to insist on a trial before a jury in the Crown court.
  I hope that my hon. Friends who are magistrates can bear to hear me say that the points that I made against a magistrates court trial sometimes included the lack of representation of the local community on the magistrates bench. I am heartened by the fact that the Attorney-General accepted a similar point in the other place during the Second Reading debate on the first Bill.
  Of course, I also mentioned in my advice the systems failings of magistrates courts, such as magistrates' inability to determine points of law and put them out of their mind when dealing with a case. How, for example, do magistrates decide that they are ruling a confession inadmissible and then go on to determine the case without taking account of the fact that the person confessed? It is difficult for magistrates to do that. Equally, the level of disclosure of evidence in magistrates courts is inferior.
  There are reasons why some people should not elect to have a trial in a Crown court, and I would warn them against the dangers of receiving a custodial sentence from a judge which they might not have received in the magistrates court. I would warn them also that they might receive a longer sentence in the Crown court than in the magistrates court. When people heard all that advice and chose to go to the Crown court for their trial, even though they risked serving a longer time in prison if they were convicted, they were choosing the right of a trial by jury ahead of that risk.
  I come to the Government's difficulty on reputation. Clearly, in the original Bill they accepted that people with an unsullied reputation who were faced with an offence of dishonesty ought to have a trial by jury. They tried to accommodate that in the first Bill by allowing people to be excepted, on the ground of reputation, from the magistrates' decision that they should have a summary trial. That proposal has rightly been thrown out because it would provide a two-tier system of justice, in that some could go to the Crown court for a jury trial and others could not.
  The Government are now trying to justify a Bill that does not protect people with reputation. That shows that the Government cannot win on this issue because the removal of access to a jury trial is wrong however it is dressed up. On this occasion, the third way really is the right way; the third way is to retain trial by jury.
  Even the previous Government balked at making such a change—but they wanted to stamp out the perceived abuses of the system, so they made other changes. In 1994, they introduced a more overt system of discounted sentencing for an early guilty plea. They introduced plea before venue only from October 1997, but those changes are making a difference. In the 1990s, the number of accused electing to go to the Crown court for trial fell.

  961
  The Government understand that there are many ways to continue trying to stamp out abuses of the system without withdrawing wholesale the right of people in either-way cases to have a trial by jury. That is why Lord Justice Auld was asked to report this year on changes that could be made. Interestingly enough, he will investigate, among other things, the composition of courts, including the use of juries and of lay and stipendiary magistrates. As these matters will be dealt with by the end of the year, why rush into making one judgment ahead of those?
  Yes, jury trials are expensive, but they have a value beyond money. They contribute to the stability of our constitution and to the trust that we have in our institutions. The existing right to withhold our consent to summary trial by magistrates in either-way cases is a safety valve. Perhaps some eccentrics and some incorrigible rogues will withhold their consent when magistrates could easily try their cases, but they must be a small minority of the 18,000 who each year exercise their right to withhold their consent to summary trial.
  I believe that, overwhelmingly, that right is exercised responsibly. Those who are to be denied a jury trial by the Bill may hold a grievance for a long time afterwards. Other citizens who thought that the right would have been available to them if they ever needed it will feel discontent. Confidence and trust in our legal system will be diminished.
  9.31 pm
  Mr. Nick Hawkins: This has been a thoughtful debate, during which we have heard many good speeches.
  I start by declaring an interest as a former member for a number of years of the practising Bar, who appeared on many occasions in both Crown courts and magistrates courts. Although I am not currently in practice, I believe that I speak from some experience, but not as much experience as many right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House who have contributed to the debate.
  Reading the debate on the first version of the Bill in another place, I was struck by the words of a distinguished member of the Bar, not of my party, which rang particularly true. On 20 January this year, the noble Baroness Mallalieu said:
  The truth is that the jury system has the confidence of ordinary people because they believe that it is the fairest system of trial.
  She went on:
  If I were accused of an offence which I had not committed I would want to be tried by a jury if at all possible, and I would know that I would have a substantially higher chance of being found not guilty. I would want 12 minds to look at the evidence and 12 fresh minds, not one, two or three people who had already heard many similar cases. As a lawyer, that is the advice I would give in almost every case where I considered my client had a good defence.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 20 January 2000; Vol. 608, c. 1260.]
  Those are wise words, which hon. Members in all parts of the House should take to heart, from a distinguished and senior member of the Bar who has also sat for many years as a recorder.
  I am surprised to see the Home Secretary being so disingenuous when he comes to the House with his No. 2 version of the Bill, having been defeated on the
  962
  No. 1 Bill, with so many of his noble Friends having spoken against him. He says that he has changed his mind, as though that made everything all right.
  The Home Secretary has a charming way of coming disingenuously to the House, as he has done on many previous occasions, and saying, "In the past we were wrong, but now we are right." In the time that he has been Home Secretary, he has done that on so many issues connected with law and order.
  The Opposition think that both the Home Secretary and the Lord Chancellor have had their minds changed for them. We believe that they have been strong-armed by the Treasury. It is the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury who are really behind the Bill, as has been said repeatedly by so many hon. Members attacking the Home Secretary with so-called friendly fire from behind him.
  The score in tonight's debate is that only three of the Home Secretary's hon. Friends on the Back Benches have been prepared to support him, whereas no less than five have attacked him. It is much the same picture as in the other place on the No. 1 Bill. The hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews) in a superb speech, and the hon. Members for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore), for Leeds, North-West (Mr. Best), for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) and for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) have all attacked the Home Secretary.
  The only three hon. Members who have been prepared to support the Home Secretary are the hon. Members for Bristol, East (Jean Corston), for Lewisham, East (Ms Prentice) and for Salford (Ms Blears). I believe that they would find it uncomfortable to return to their constituencies and tell their activists that they had attacked the arguments of organisations such as Justice, Liberty, the National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders, the Society of Asian Lawyers and the Society of Black Lawyers. Even the Home Secretary's few supporters will find it difficult to explain why all those organisations, which have a proud record of supporting civil liberties, are wrong.
  The hon. Member for Bristol, East rightly paid homage to those who had taught her in the past, such as Lord Runciman and Professor Michael Zander. However, in an interesting passage in a good and thoughtful speech, she said that she would vote against the Bill and support the hon. and learned Member for Medway if she believed that it would increase the scope for wrongful convictions among ethnic minority communities. She referred to research by Dr. Bonny Mhlanga. However, she may not have read the debates in another place because Lord Dholakia—again, not a member of my party—used the research to support the opposite case and attack the Home Secretary. In a powerful passage of his speech on 20 January in column 1278 of Hansard, he said that Dr. Mhlanga's research led to the conclusion that the hon. and learned Member for Medway presented. I hope that the hon. Member for Bristol, East will reflect on that, examine the debates in another place and decide that we and the hon. and learned Member for Medway are right.
  In a powerful speech, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) reflected on the time when the original proposals were put forward by him and considered for consultation without commitment. He made it clear that if he had continued to

  963
  be Home Secretary after the last election, he would have tried to persuade other Conservative Members to go ahead with some sort of proposal, but not the Government's measure, for reasons that he wisely set out.
  Despite my enormous respect for my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe, he would not have succeeded in persuading me to accept such a proposal. Throughout my legal career, I have strongly supported the right to trial by jury. My right hon. and learned Friend's attacks on this Bill are especially accurate.
  The hon. and learned Member for Medway, who has been a practising barrister for 33 years and a recorder for 18 years, pointed out that even St. Paul on the road to Damascus to conduct public prosecutions without a jury, did not undergo the same sort of conversion as the Home Secretary. He pointed out that the proposal had been brought from the Home Secretary's hutch in the Home Office, and was not a manifesto commitment. When the Minister winds up for the Government, I hope that he will make it clear that, if the Bill is defeated tonight or in another place on a subsequent occasion, the Government will decide that, because the measure was not mentioned in their manifesto, it would be wrong in principle to try to railroad it through another place. It would be right for the Government to accept defeat, crawl away and lick their wounds.
  The hon. and learned Member for Medway rightly pointed out that the costs of the appeals could amount to £6,700,000. He said that the Bill will not achieve the savings about which the Treasury has persuaded the Home Secretary and the Lord Chancellor. It will cost more money.
  The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) spoke of the importance of not proceeding with piecemeal change to the law. He correctly said that we should wait for Lord Justice Auld's committee to report. In a powerful speech, the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) rightly pointed out that, when considering the civil liberties aspect of trial by jury, we should take account of the cry of freedom.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Malins), who is a practising lawyer, a recorder and an acting stipendiary rightly said that the Bill was shameful and shoddy. He comprehensively demolished the Government's arguments on cost saving and the time of appeals. He also pointed out that Crown court delays are not as great precisely because of the reforms that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe introduced when he was Home Secretary. I was a member of Committees that scrutinised the Bills that introduced many of those reforms and a lot of the Home Secretary's arguments undoubtedly fall away when we consider the recent speeding up of Crown court trials. The plea-before-venue system has saved a lot of time.
  The hon. Member for Lewisham, East (Ms Prentice) half said that she had come to the House specifically to bury lawyers, not to praise them. She indulged in the conventional rhetorical trick of erecting an argument that nobody was making—an alleged attack on the lay magistracy, which the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West moderately said that he had heard nobody make—
  964
  and then said that we must defend the lay magistracy. We on the opposition Benches are proud of the lay magistracy and its work, but one does not have to be an attacker of the lay magistracy to be against the Bill, which is flawed in its own right for reasons unconnected with the lay magistracy.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) correctly dismissed the Scottish experience—as the Home Secretary has pointed out that he had considered it—and said that the Home Secretary had made the provisions worse since the failure of the first Bill. The hon. Member for Leeds, North-West referred to the common-sense justice that is founded on trial by jury, which he was taught at Meanwood county school, and rightly said that he had not heard any attack on magistrates.
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell)—a former Attorney-General—rightly complimented the lay magistracy on all its work and said that the Bill would achieve no cost savings. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) made two good points: he said that no one ever writes to him or to any other Member of the House to complain about the right to trial by jury and the Home Secretary is required to prove beyond reasonable doubt—the usual standard of proof in criminal courts—that the Bill does not attack civil liberties. He concluded that the Home Secretary has failed to reach that standard.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis) spoke as a libertarian, against the Treasury. He said that it is important to try every other mechanism to improve our criminal justice system first and that we must not throw away fundamental civil liberties. In a speech that can be described only as somewhat egregious in its loyalism to the Millbank spin doctors, the hon. Member for Salford (Ms Blears) said that the organisations on which I challenged her, such as Justice and Liberty, are motivated by self-interest and dominated by lawyers. I suspect that she will have cause to regret that, and her speech could be described as selling her civil libertarian soul for a mess of pottage in the Bill.
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) gave the House the benefit of his sharp-end experience and pointed out everything that could go wrong if the Bill become law. The hon. Member for Stafford, who has extensive practical experience of the magistrates courts, made a brief but well-observed contribution and foresaw many difficulties with the Bill.
  The hon. and learned Member for Medway quoted the leading work on the history of trial by jury, which was written by Sir Patrick Devlin, who became a most distinguished Law Lord. Like most lawyers of my generation, I was brought up the words and judgments of the late Lords Denning and Devlin. The hon. Gentleman missed out some of what Sir Patrick Devlin wrote. He concluded his book on trial by jury with these words, quoted from Sir William Blackstone:
  So that the liberties of England cannot but subsist so long as this palladium—
  he meant trial by jury—
  remains sacred and inviolate; not only from all open attacks … but also from all secret machinations, which may sap and undermine it; by introducing new and arbitrary methods of trial; by justices of the

  965
  peace, commissioners of the revenue, and courts of conscience. And however convenient these may appear at first (as doubtless all arbitrary powers, well executed, are the most convenient), yet let it be again remembered, that delays and little inconveniences in the forms of justice, are the price that all free nations must pay for their liberty in more substantial matters; that these inroads upon this sacred bulwark of the nation are fundamentally opposite to the spirit of our constitution; and that, though begun in trifles, the precedent may gradually increase and spread, to the utter disuse of juries in questions of the most momentous concern.
  9.45 pm
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Charles Clarke): I agree with the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) that this has been a good debate, enlivened by some excellent speeches. I pay particular tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Bristol, East (Ms Corston), for Lewisham, East (Ms Prentice) and for Salford (Ms Blears), but I also pay tribute to the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) and the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis), who made well-considered speeches, albeit opposing the Bill.
  We heard 19 speakers, 14 of whom—more than 70 per cent.—were barristers or solicitors. That constitutes a significant watering down of the lawyer content since the debate in the other place. A number of serious points were made. In an intervention, my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) asked my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to what extent cost was a motive. That was raised in a number of other contributions, which asked questions about, for instance, the legitimacy of the estimates. All those were fair enough points, but I emphasise that none of our case rests on the cost savings that may arise from the Bill—it derives entirely from the need to create a more transparent, clear and fair criminal justice system. That is why the Bill is before us, and that is its intention.
  The law requires us to make an estimate of the cost savings involved, and we have set out those savings in the Bill to the best of our ability. I acknowledge that many of the points made about cost savings are fair, and that the proof of the pudding will be in the eating; but those points are not germane to the central issue, which is whether we want to enact a measure to modernise the criminal justice system and to make it more transparent. That, in fact, is the entire motivation behind the Bill.
  Mr. Burnett: The Minister says that the proof of the pudding will be in the eating. Would it not be wiser for him to look before he leaps, and to arrange an independent scrutiny of the figures that the Government are using to justify their actions?
  Mr. Clarke: There are many scrutinies of the figures, but the hon. Gentleman makes my point for me. My point is that cost issues, significant though they are, are not the central motivation behind the Bill. The central motivation is the need to secure a modernised, efficient and effective criminal justice system.
  I pay tribute to all who have spoken. As my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, East observed, much of the discussion outside the House—certainly that in the other place—has tended to demean the role of the magistrates courts, but that has not been the tenor of our debate. The hon. Member for Woking, for example, said that it had nothing to do with the suggestion that one court
  966
  was better than another, and many others have made similar points. Some outside and in the other place have rested their whole case, in an arrogant and sneering way, on the proposition that justice in the magistrates courts is somehow less worth while than that in the Crown courts; but no such suggestion has been made today, and I am glad that it has not. It is, of course, important that that should be the case, given that more than 95 per cent. of cases are resolved in the magistrates courts.
  A number of Members made the point that this was a matter of balance and judgment. The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) made it when he said that it was not an open-and-shut case. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews) made it when he said—in response to an intervention from my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary—that the issues depended on the balance of judgment, and lay on the margins.
  It is a question of balance and judgment, but the issue is clear: we are seeking to achieve a transparent and clear criminal justice system.
  Mr. Bermingham: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Clarke: I shall not at this stage.
  A number of the arguments against the Bill have been somewhat overblown. The facts are that there are cases that go automatically to the Crown court, where the venue is clear, there is no choice for the defendant and the situation is set out—there are 24,000 on average every year; and there are cases that go automatically to the magistrates court—there are about 1.4 million every year—where, under current legislation, there is no choice for the defendant to go to the Crown court. The position is simple: they go straight to the magistrates court.
  Some say that no question of reputation is involved. The list of cases considered in that summary way includes assault on a constable, common assault, brothel keeping, cruelty to animals, cruelty to or neglect of children, aggravated vehicle taking, indecent exposure, and driving after consuming alcohol or drugs. Those are serious offences, where a serious issue of reputation is involved. All are decided in the magistrates court today, without any question of the defendant or anyone else deciding that the matter should go to trial by jury—to a Crown court.
  It is a substantial point: a significant list of offences goes at the moment directly to summary court and summary judgment, without anyone suggesting that they should go to the Crown court. It is important to place on the record that no one in the debate has suggested that we should change the law so that, in the sort of cases that I have mentioned, the individual has the automatic right to choose trial by jury.
  We have talked about each-way cases: there are about 465,000 every year, 400,000 going to the magistrates court and 65,000 going to the Crown court. Those are the overall figures.
  It is important to put the debate in perspective. As I say, today more than 95 per cent. of cases are judged automatically by the magistrates courts. Many of those cases include serious offences involving reputation in a variety of ways.

  967
  The simple issue on each-way cases is: does the prosecutor, the defendant, the magistrate or the court decide, subject to appeal? Many international comparisons can be made. All the systems are entirely different in their character, history and orientation, but it is true that the English and Welsh system is eccentric in that it permits defendants to choose. In general in the rest of the world, either the court decides or, in some cases, which are equally eccentric, the prosecution decides. It is eccentric for the defendant to be given the right to decide. What is universal is the right of everyone to have a fair trial, whether in the magistrates court or Crown court.
  Mr. Bermingham: Does my hon. Friend agree that, if we took away the right of the defendant and left it to the Crown Prosecution Service to decide the level of charge, those that it considered merited a sentence of six months or less could go to the magistrates court and those that it considered merited a sentence of six months or more could go to the Crown court? In that way, we would get rid of that argument and solve the whole problem.
  Mr. Clarke: I am familiar with the idea. I have seen the correspondence that my hon. Friend has had with the Home Secretary. There are interesting arguments in the debate in relation to reclassifying some of the offences in different areas. Many issues arise.
  Mr. Marshall-Andrews: On the subject of eccentric systems, what are the other systems in the world where there is a right of trial by jury—let us forget Scotland for a moment—and where that right is not exercised by the defendant? Let us have a list.
  Mr. Clarke: I will let my hon. and learned Friend have the list, but I do not regard Scotland as an eccentricity in any respect whatever. No Labour Member could possibly do so.
  The change that we have proposed is significant and important. It is focused on reducing opacity in the system—on increasing its clarity—and on reducing abuse.
  Mr. Garnier: That is the third time that the Minister has mentioned either transparency or opacity. In what way is the current system lacking in transparency?
  Mr. Clarke: I should be very surprised if the hon. and learned Gentleman does not see many cases in his surgery, as I do in mine, involving victims, criminals or jurors, for example, who say that they do not understand how the legal system has worked for them or that they have not had justice from the system. My hon. Friend the Member for Salford made an excellent speech containing some very specific examples showing why people might feel that way. I do not think that the criminal justice system does very well in those spheres.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Clarke: No. I shall not give way again, as I am near the end of my speech and have to finish it in four minutes.
  The Bill, for the reasons eloquently stated by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, East, is supported by the royal commission, the Lord Chief Justice, magistrates and police. The matter involves a balanced judgment. Although I hear what the Bar Council and the Law Society had to say, I also know that there are divided opinions on the matter within the legal profession. It is important to stress that the case is very clear and straightforward. We need to change the criminal justice system—to modernise it and to take it forward—and that is what we are doing.
  Mr. Hughes: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Clarke: No, but I shall deal with the points that the hon. Gentleman made. [HON. MEMBERS: "Give way."] No. With three minutes to go, I shall not give way but try to deal with the points that have been made in the debate.
  Mr. Marshall-Andrews rose—
  Hon. Members: Give way.
  Mr. Clarke: No, I shall not give way.
  The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey asked about establishing a Special Standing Committee on the Bill. We shall not take that course, but consider the Bill properly in the normal course of events. We promised to do that, and that is what we shall do.
  Various hon. Members, including the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden, the hon. Member for Woking and my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, made the important point that some people play the system to their advantage. The point has been made clearly, and we should deal with it.
  The issue of effect of plea-before-venue was raised by various hon. Members, but particularly by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher). We do not accept the view that plea-before-venue is reducing the number of elections and makes the Bill redundant. Plea-before-venue allows those who wish to plead guilty to do so in the magistrates court, which was not possible in directed cases prior to implementation—
  Mr. Marshall-Andrews: Will the Minister give way?
  Hon. Members: Give way.
  Mr. Clarke: In 1999, the number of elections increased by 3.6 per cent., to just under 19,000.
  The issue of appeal was raised by the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) and the hon. Member for Woking. It is open to the party to request an oral hearing and to the judge to accede to that request, but it is at the judge's discretion. We expect most appeals to be dealt with on the papers and most appeals to be dealt with within 48 hours.
  The matter of reputation has been dealt with at great length in the debate. As I have said very clearly, regardless of whether a case is to be committed to summary trial or to each-way trial, very many cases may

  969
  have an effect on the reputation and integrity of all types of individuals. Such cases may profoundly affect individuals—whether Members of Parliament or anyone else—and even damage their lives. It is absolutely clear that magistrates courts give a fair trial, and that they will continue to give a fair trial. We should defend that very important principle.
  I ask all my hon. Friends to vote on the Bill's merits and to modernise the criminal justice system—taking into account the considered view of police, the legal system, the royal commission, the Lord Chief Justice and magistrates, and in the interests of victims and witnesses. Our constituents want a modern criminal justice system that will serve the needs of all our society and not only the needs of the band of lawyers who are seeking to protect their own interests.
  We have to safeguard the interests of every citizen. That is our duty. That is why this matter is being dealt with in this Chamber—the elected Chamber—where we all have our responsibility to safeguard those interests. I commend the Bill to the House.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 214, Noes 315.

  Division No. 94

  [9.59 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

  Allan, Richard

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Amess, David

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Clwyd, Ann

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Cohen, Harry

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Collins, Tim

  Baker, Norman

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Baldry, Tony

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Ballard, Jackie

  Cotter, Brian

  Barnes, Harry

  Cran, James

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Bell, Martin (Tatton)

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Bercow, John

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Day, Stephen

  Blunt, Crispin

  Donaldson, Jeffrey

  Body, Sir Richard

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Boswell, Tim

  Duncan, Alan

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Brady, Graham

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Brake, Tom

  Etherington, Bill

  Brand, Dr Peter

  Evans, Nigel

  Brazier, Julian

  Faber, David

  Breed, Colin

  Fabricant, Michael

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Fallon, Michael

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Feam, Ronnie

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Fisher, Mark

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Flight, Howard

  Burnett, John

  Flynn, Paul

  Burns, Simon

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Burstow, Paul

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Butterfill, John

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Fraser, Christopher

  Cash, William

  Gale, Roger

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Garnier, Edward

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Chope, Christopher

  Gerrard, Neil

  Clapham, Michael

  Gibb, Nick

  Clappison, James

  Gill, Christopher

  970

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Gray, James

  Öpik, Lembit

  Green, Damian

  Ottaway, Richard

  Greenway, John

  Page, Richard

  Grieve, Dominic

  Paice, James

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Paterson, Owen

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Pickles, Eric

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Hammond, Philip

  Prior, David

  Hancock, Mike

  Randall, John

  Harris, Dr Evan

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Harvey, Nick

  Rendel, David

  Hawkins, Nick

  Robathan, Andrew

  Heald, Oliver

  Robertson, Laurence

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxboume)

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  Ruffley, David

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Horam, John

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Sanders, Adrian

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Hunter, Andrew

  Shepherd, Richard

  Hurst Alan

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Skinner, Dennis

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Keetch, Paul

  Soames, Nicholas

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

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Key, Robert

  Spring, Richard

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Steen, Anthony

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Streeter, Gary

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Stunell, Andrew

  Lansley, Andrew

  Swayne, Desmond

  Leigh, Edward

  Syms, Robert

  Letwin, Oliver

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Lidington, David

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Loughton, Tim

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Luff, Peter

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Townend, John

  McDonnell, John

  Tredinnick, David

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Trend, Michael

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Tyler, Paul

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Viggers, Peter

  Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

  Walter, Robert

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Wardle, Charles

  McNamara, Kevin

  Waterson, Nigel

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Webb, Steve

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Wells, Bowen

  Malins, Humfrey

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  Maples, John

  Whittingdale, John

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Mates, Michael

  Wilkinson, John

  Maude, Rt Hon Francis

  Willetts, David

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Willis, Phil

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Mitchell, Austin

  Wise, Audrey

  Moore, Michael

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Norman, Archie

  Mr. David Kidney and

  Oaten, Mark

  Mr. Harold Best.

  NOES

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Ainger, Nick

  Ashton, Joe

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Alexander, Douglas

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Allen, Graham

  Banks, Tony

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Battle, John

  971

  Bayley, Hugh

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Beard, Nigel

  Ennis, Jeff

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

  Fitzsimons, Loma

  Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

  Flint, Caroline

  Benton, Joe

  Follett, Barbara

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Berry, Roger

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Betts, Clive

  Foulkes, George

  Blackman, Liz

  Galbraith, Sam

  Blair, Rt Hon Tony

  Galloway, George

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Gapes, Mike

  Blizzard, Bob

  Gardiner, Barry

  Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

  George, Bruce (Walsall S)

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Godsiff, Roger

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Goggins, Paul

  Brown, Rt Hon Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Browne, Desmond

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Grocott, Bruce

  Burden, Richard

  Grogan, John

  Burgon, Colin

  Gunnell, John

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Hain, Peter

  Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Hanson, David

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  Caplin, Ivor

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Casale, Roger

  Healey, John

  Cawsey, Ian

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Chaytor, David

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Church, Ms Judith

  Heppell, John

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Hesford, Stephen

  Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Hewitt, Ms Patricia

  Hill, Keith

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Hoey, Kate

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Home Robertson, John

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Hood, Jimmy

  Coaker, Vernon

  Hope, Phil

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

  Coleman, Iain

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Colman, Tony

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Connarty, Michael

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Cooper, Yvette

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Corbett, Robin

  Hutton, John

  Corston, Jean

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Cousins, Jim

  Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

  Cranston, Ross

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Crausby, David

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Cummings, John

  Jamieson, David

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Jenkins, Brian

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Darvill, Keith

  Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

  Davidson, Ian

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Dawson, Hilton

  Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Denham, John

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Dewar, Rt Hon Donald

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Doran, Frank

  Kelly, Ms Ruth

  Dowd, Jim

  Kemp, Fraser

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Efford, Clive

  Khabra, Piara S

  972

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Primarolo, Dawn

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Purchase, Ken

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

  Laxton, Bob

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Lepper, David

  Radice, Rt Hon Giles

  Leslie, Christopher

  Rammell, Bill

  Levitt, Tom

  Rapson, Syd

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Raynsford, Nick

  Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  Linton, Martin

  Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  Lock, David

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Love, Andrew

  Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Rooney, Terry

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Ross, Emie (Dundee W)

  Macdonald, Calum

  Ruddock, Joan

  McFall, John

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  McIsaac, Shona

  Salter, Martin

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Savidge, Malcolm

  McLeish, Henry

  Sawford, Phil

  McNulty, Tony

  Sheerman, Barry

  MacShane, Denis

  Singh, Marsha

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  McWalter, Tony

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  McWilliam, John

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  Mallaber, Judy

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Snape, Peter

  Martlew, Eric

  Soley, Clive

  Maxton, John

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Spellar, John

  Meale, Alan

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Merron, Gillian

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Stevenson, George

  Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Miller, Andrew

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Moffatt, Laura

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Morley, Elliot

  Straw, Rt Hon Jack

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

  Stringer, Graham

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Morris, Rt Hon Sir John (Aberavon)

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Mountford, Kali

  Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Mudie, George

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Mullin, Chris

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

  Timms, Stephen

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Tipping, Paddy

  Norris, Dan

  Trickett, Jon

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  O'Hara, Eddie

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Olner, Bill

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Organ, Mrs Diana

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Osborne, Ms Sandra

  Tynan, Bill

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Vaz, Keith

  Pearson, Ian

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Pendry, Tom

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Perham, Ms Linda

  Watts, David

  Pickthall, Colin

  White, Brian

  Pike, Peter L

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Plaskitt, James

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Pollard, Kerry

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Pond, Chris

  Pope, Greg

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Pound, Stephen

  Wills, Michael

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Wilson, Brian

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Winnick, David

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  973

  Woodward, Shaun

  Wyatt, Derek

  Woolas, Phil

  Worthington, Tony

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Wray, James

  Mr. David Clelland and

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Mr. Don Touhig.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 315, Noes 188.

  Division No. 95]

  [10.13 pm

  AYES

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Coleman, Iain

  Ainger, Nick

  Colman, Tony

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Connarty, Michael

  Alexander, Douglas

  Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

  Allen, Graham

  Cooper, Yvette

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Corbett, Robin

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Corston, Jean

  Ashton, Joe

  Cousins, Jim

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Cranston, Ross

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Crausby, David

  Banks, Tony

  Cummings, John

  Battle, John

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Beard, Nigel

  Dalyell, Tam

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Darvill, Keith

  Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

  Davidson, Ian

  Benton, Joe

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Dawson, Hilton

  Berry, Roger

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Betts, Clive

  Denham, John

  Blackman, Liz

  Dewar, Rt Hon Donald

  Blair, Rt Hon Tony

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Doran, Frank

  Blizzard, Bob

  Dowd, Jim

  Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Efford, Clive

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Ennis, Jeff

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Brown, Rt Hon Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Fitzsimons, Loma

  Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

  Flint, Caroline

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Follett, Barbara

  Browne, Desmond

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Burden, Richard

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Burgon, Colin

  Foulkes, George

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Galbraith, Sam

  Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

  Galloway, George

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Gapes, Mike

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Gardiner, Barry

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  George, Bruce (Walsall S)

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  Caplin, Ivor

  Godsiff, Roger

  Casale, Roger

  Goggins, Paul

  Cawsey, Ian

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  Chaytor, David

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Church, Ms Judith

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Grocott, Bruce

  Grogan, John

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Gunnell, John

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Hain, Peter

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Coaker, Vernon

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Hanson, David

  974

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Meale, Alan

  Healey, John

  Merron, Gillian

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Miller, Andrew

  Heppell, John

  Moffatt, Laura

  Hesford, Stephen

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Hewitt, Ms Patricia

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Hill, Keith

  Morley, Elliot

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

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

  Hoey, Kate

  Home Robertson, John

  Morris, Rt Hon Sir John (Aberavon)

  Hood, Jimmy

  Hope, Phil

  Mountford, Kali

  Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

  Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Mudie, George

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Mullin, Chris

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

  Hutton, John

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Norris, Dan

  Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  O'Hara, Eddie

  Jamieson, David

  Olner, Bill

  Jenkins, Brian

  O'Neill, Martin

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Organ, Mrs Diana

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Osborne, Ms Sandra

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

  Pearson, Ian

  Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

  Pendry, Tom

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Perham, Ms Linda

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

  Pike, Peter L

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Plaskitt, James

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Pollard, Kerry

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Pond, Chris

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Pope, Greg

  Kelly, Ms Ruth

  Pound, Stephen

  Kemp, Fraser

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Khabra, Piara S

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Primarolo, Dawn

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenitworth)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Purchase, Ken

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

  Laxton, Bob

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Lepper, David

  Radice, Rt Hon Giles

  Leslie, Christopher

  Rammell, Bill

  Levitt, Tom

  Rapson, Syd

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Raynsford, Nick

  Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  Linton, Martin

  Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  Lock, David

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Love, Andrew

  Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Rooney, Terry

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Macdonald, Calum

  Ruddock, Joan

  McFall, John

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  McIsaac, Shona

  Salter, Martin

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Savidge, Malcolm

  McLeish, Henry

  Sawford, Phil

  McNulty, Tony

  Sheerman, Barry

  MacShane, Denis

  Singh, Marsha

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  McWalter, Tony

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  McWilliam, John

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  Mallaber, Judy

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Snape, Peter

  Martlew, Eric

  Soley, Clive

  Maxton, John

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  975

  Spellar, John

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Tynan, Bill

  Stevenson, George

  Vaz, Keith

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Watts, David

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  White, Brian

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Straw, Rt Hon Jack

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Stringer, Graham

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Wills, Michael

  Wilson, Brian

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Winnick, David

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Woodward, Shaun

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Woolas, Phil

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Worthington, Tony

  Timms, Stephen

  Wray, James

  Tipping, Paddy

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Trickett, Jon

  Wyatt, Derek

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Mr. David Clelland and

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Mr. Don Touhig.

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Allan, Richard

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Amess, David

  Donaldson, Jeffrey

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Duncan, Alan

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Baker, Norman

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Baldry, Tony

  Evans, Nigel

  Ballard, Jackie

  Faber, David

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Fabricant, Michael

  Bell, Martin (Tatton)

  Fallon, Michael

  Bercow, John

  Feam, Ronnie

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Flight, Howard

  Blunt, Crispin

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Body, Sir Richard

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Boswell, Tim

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

  Fraser, Christopher

  Brady, Graham

  Gale, Roger

  Brake, Tom

  Garnier, Edward

  Brand, Dr Peter

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Brazier, Julian

  Gibb, Nick

  Breed, Colin

  Gill, Christopher

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Gray, James

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Green, Damian

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Greenway, John

  Burnett, John

  Grieve, Dominic

  Burns, Simon

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Burstow, Paul

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Butterfill, John

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

  Hammond, Philip

  Hancock, Mike

  Cash, William

  Harris, Dr Evan

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Harvey, Nick

  Hawkins, Nick

  Chope, Christopher

  Hayes, John

  Clappison, James

  Heald, Oliver

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Horam, John

  Collins, Tim

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Cotter, Brian

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Cran, James

  Hunter, Andrew

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  976

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Robathan, Andrew

  Keetch, Paul

  Robertson, Laurence

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

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxboume)

  Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

  Key, Robert

  Ruffley, David

  Kidney, David

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Sanders, Adrian

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Shepherd, Richard

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Lansley, Andrew

  Soames, Nicholas

  Leigh, Edward

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Letwin, Oliver

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Spring, Richard

  Lidington, David

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Steen, Anthony

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Streeter, Gary

  Loughton, Tim

  Stunell, Andrew

  Luff, Peter

  Swayne, Desmond

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Syms, Robert

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Malins, Humfrey

  Townend, John

  Maples, John

  Tredinnick, David

  Mates, Michael

  Trend, Michael

  Maude, Rt Hon Francis

  Tyler, Paul

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Tyrie, Andrew

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Viggers, Peter

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Walter, Robert

  Moore, Michael

  Wardle, Charles

  Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

  Waterson, Nigel

  Moss, Malcolm

  Webb, Steve

  Norman, Archie

  Wells, Bowen

  Oaten, Mark

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Whittingdale, John

  Öpik, Lembit

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Ottaway, Richard

  Wilkinson, John

  Page, Richard

  Willetts, David

  Paice, James

  Willis, Phil

  Paterson, Owen

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Pickles, Eric

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Prior, David

  Randall, John

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Mr. Stephen Day and

  Rendel, David

  Mr. Peter Atkinson.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Bill read a Second time.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 63(2),
  That the Bill be committed to a Special Standing Committee.—[Mr. Simon Hughes.]
  The House divided: Ayes 181, Noes 325.

  Division No. 96]

  [10.25 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Bell, Martin (Tatton)

  Allan, Richard

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Amess, David

  Blunt, Crispin

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Body, Sir Richard

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Boswell, Tim

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

  Baker, Norman

  Brady, Graham

  Ballard, Jackie

  Brake, Tom

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Brand, Dr Peter

  977

  Brazier, Julian

  Key, Robert

  Breed, Colin

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Lansley, Andrew

  Burnett, John

  Leigh, Edward

  Burstow, Paul

  Letwin, Oliver

  Butterfill, John

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

  Lidington, David

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Cash, William

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Loughton, Tim

  Luff, Peter

  Chope, Christopher

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Clappison, James

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Collins, Tim

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Cotter, Brian

  Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

  Cran, James

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Maples, John

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Day, Stephen

  Mates, Michael

  Donaldson, Jeffrey

  Maude, Rt Hon Francis

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Duncan, Alan

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Moore, Michael

  Faber, David

  Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

  Fabricant, Michael

  Norman, Archie

  Fallon, Michael

  Oaten, Mark

  Feam, Ronnie

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Öpik, Lembit

  Fisher, Mark

  Ottaway, Richard

  Flight, Howard

  Page, Richard

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Paice, James

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Paterson, Owen

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Pickles, Eric

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Fraser, Christopher

  Prior, David

  Gale, Roger

  Randall, John

  Garnier, Edward

  Rendel, David

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Robathan, Andrew

  Gibb, Nick

  Robertson, Laurence

  Gill, Christopher

  Ruffley, David

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Gray, James

  Sanders, Adrian

  Green, Damian

  Shepherd, Richard

  Greenway, John

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Grieve, Dominic

  Soames, Nicholas

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Spring, Richard

  Hammond, Philip

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Hancock, Mike

  Steen, Anthony

  Harris, Dr Evan

  Streeter, Gary

  Harvey, Nick

  Swayne, Desmond

  Hawkins, Nick

  Syms, Robert

  Hayes, John

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Heald, Oliver

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Horam, John

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Thompson, William

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Townend, John

  Hunter, Andrew

  Tredinnick, David

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Trend, Michael

  Jenkin, Bemard

  Tyler, Paul

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Keetch, Paul

  Viggers, Peter

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

  Walter, Robert

  Wardle, Charles

  978

  Waterson, Nigel

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Webb, Steve

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Wells, Bowen

  Wise, Audrey

  Whittingdale, John

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Wilkinson, John

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Willetts, David

  Mr. Andrew Stunell and

  Willis, Phil

  Mr. Bob Russell.

  NOES

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Corston, Jean

  Ainger, Nick

  Cousins, Jim

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Cranston, Ross

  Alexander, Douglas

  Crausby, David

  Allen, Graham

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Cummings, John

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Ashton, Joe

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Dalyell, Tam

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Banks, Tony

  Darvill, Keith

  Barnes, Harry

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Battle, John

  Davidson, Ian

  Bayley, Hugh

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Beard, Nigel

  Dawson, Hilton

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Denham, John

  Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

  Dewar, Rt Hon Donald

  Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Benton, Joe

  Doran, Frank

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Dowd, Jim

  Berry, Roger

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Betts, Clive

  Efford, Clive

  Blackman, Liz

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Blair, Rt Hon Tony

  Ennis, Jeff

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Blizzard, Bob

  Fitzsimons, Loma

  Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

  Flint, Caroline

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Flynn, Paul

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Follett, Barbara

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Foulkes, George

  Browne, Desmond

  Galbraith, Sam

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Galloway, George

  Burden, Richard

  Gapes, Mike

  Burgon, Colin

  Gardiner, Barry

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  George, Bruce (Walsall S)

  Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

  Gerrard, Neil

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Godsiff, Roger

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Goggins, Paul

  Caplin, Ivor

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Casale, Roger

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  Cawsey, Ian

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Chaytor, David

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Church, Ms Judith

  Grocott, Bruce

  Clapham, Michael

  Grogan, John

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Gunnell, John

  Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Hain, Peter

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Hanson, David

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  Clwyd, Ann

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Coaker, Vernon

  Healey, John

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Colman, Tony

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Connarty, Michael

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

  Heppell, John

  Cooper, Yvette

  Hesford, Stephen

  Corbett, Robin

  Hewitt, Ms Patricia

  979

  Hill, Keith

  McWilliam, John

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  Mallaber, Judy

  Hoey, Kate

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Home Robertson, John

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Hood, Jimmy

  Martlew, Eric

  Hope, Phil

  Maxton, John

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

  Meale, Alan

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Merron, Gillian

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Miller, Andrew

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Moffatt, Laura

  Hurst, Alan

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Hutton, John

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Morley, Elliot

  Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

  Morr's, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Morris, Rt Hon Sir John (Aberavon)

  Jenkins, Brian

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Mountford, Kali

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie

  Mudie, George

  Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

  Mullin, Chris

  Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

  Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Norris, Dan

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  O'Hara, Eddie

  Kelly, Ms Ruth

  Olner, Bill

  Kemp, Fraser

  O'Neill, Martin

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Organ, Mrs Diana

  Khabra, Piara S

  Osborne, Ms Sandra

  Kidney, David

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Pearson, Ian

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Pendry, Tom

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Perham, Ms Linda

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Pickthall, Colin

  Laxton, Bob

  Pike, Peter L

  Lepper, David

  Plaskitt, James

  Leslie, Christopher

  Pollard, Kerry

  Levitt, Tom

  Pond, Chris

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Pope, Greg

  Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

  Pound, Stephen

  Linton, Martin

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Lock, David

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Love, Andrew

  Primarolo, Dawn

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Prosser, Gwyn

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Purchase, Ken

  Macdonald, Calum

  Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

  McFall, John

  Quinn, Lawrie

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Radice, Rt Hon Giles

  McIsaac, Shona

  Rammell, Bill

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Rapson, Syd

  McLeish, Henry

  Raynsford, Nick

  McNulty, Tony

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  MacShane, Denis

  Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  McWalter, Tony

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  980

  Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Rooney, Terry

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Ruddock, Joan

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Timms, Stephen

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  Tipping, Paddy

  Salter, Martin

  Trickett, Jon

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Truswell, Paul

  Sawford, Phil

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Singh, Marsha

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  Tynan, Bill

  Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Vaz, Keith

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Watts, David

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  White, Brian

  Snape, Peter

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Soley, Clive

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Spellar, John

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Wills, Michael

  Stevenson, George

  Wilson, Brian

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Winnick, David

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Woodward, Shaun

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Woolas, Phil

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Worthington, Tony

  Straw, Rt Hon Jack

  Wray, James

  Stringer, Graham

  Wright Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Wyatt, Derek

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Mr. Don Touhig and

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Mr. David Clelland.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Bill committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of Bills).

  PARLIAMENTARY CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS FUND AND HOUSE OF COMMONS MEMBERS' FUND
  Resolved,
  That,
  (1) in pursuance of Section 1 of the Parliamentary and other Pensions Act 1987, Mr. A. J. Beith and Mrs. Sylvia Heal be appointed Managing Trustees of the Parliamentary Contributory Pensions Fund in the room of Dr. Vincent Cable and Ms Gisela Stuart; and
  (2) in pursuance of Section 2 of the House of Commons Members' Fund Act 1939, Mr. A. J. Beith and Mrs. Sylvia Heal be appointed Managing Trustees of the House of Commons Members' Fund in the room of Dr. Vincent Cable and Ms Gisela Stuart.—[Mr. MacGregor.]

Phoenix Companies
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. McAvoy.]
10.38 pm
Mr. Phil Willis: May I thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to raise what is—[Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. Would hon. Members leave the Chamber quickly and quietly, so that we can proceed with the Adjournment debate?
Mr. Willis: May I thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to raise an important issue at what I hope is not too late an hour?
Phoenixism is the name popularly given to cases where the assets of an insolvent business are reacquired by its former management or closely connected parties. Many small traders who are owed money by companies that go into liquidation are often quite rightly outraged to find that the directors of those companies suffer little personal loss and are able to start a new business in the same sector almost immediately. Indeed, those small traders often find that assets have been transferred to the other company before the first company has gone into liquidation, so as to put assets beyond the reach of creditors.
To a certain extent, that is a logical consequence of the limited liability laws. For the purpose of the law, a company is a separate legal entity if it trades with limited liability, and its directors or shareholders do not usually retain liability for the company's debts if it becomes insolvent. Legally, there is nothing to prevent a director of a company from running a number of businesses simultaneously. Equally, there is nothing in law to prevent a director of an insolvent company from starting a new business overnight, provided that he has acted properly in managing the first company before and during its insolvency.
If, however, the owner of an insolvent company has deliberately acted to the detriment of the company's creditors, action should be taken against him under current legislation. That action should result in administrators reporting unfit conduct to the Insolvency Service, or in a court, under section 6 of the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986, ordering a disqualification order of between two and 15 years for unfit conduct as a director.
Clearly, when the Government came into office in 1997, they thought the present system wholly inadequate. The then Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths), launched a blistering attack on rogue companies. In his press notice of 30 July 1997, he said:
I am particularly infuriated when one of these bad companies goes into liquidation and then starts up again with the same directors and with almost the same name, same staff and equipment and then carries out the same or similar business with a blatant disregard to creditors so that further failure is inevitable—this is the "phoenix" company and the cowboy director.
The hon. Gentleman was very strong in his determination to drive such practices out of our system. Six months later, he launched a 24-hour hotline to allow
982
members of the public to report disqualified directors who continued to trade. A press release by the present Minister reported that, in the hotline's first year,
Insolvency Service investigators have received 1,200 calls with each one carefully followed up.
How many of those calls resulted in a rogue director being taken to court? What is the percentage increase in the number of directors disqualified in the past three years compared with the previous three years?
If, as I suspect, very few directors were disqualified as a result of the hotline, the Minister's boast that the latest disqualification statistics confirmed
the effectiveness of the Government's approach to tackle rogue directors and phoenixism
will have a hollow ring.
That boast certainly has a hollow ring for my constituent, who has brought a case of flagrant abuse, duplicity and possible fraud to the attention of the Department of Trade and Industry, the hotline, the Insolvency Service, the fraud squad, me, and the Minister, with little if any satisfaction. If his case is typical of the way genuine business men are treated when faced with phoenixism, the Minister has a lot of work still to do.
My constituent entered into a 15-year agreement to lease land and buildings to Pallet Ancillary Management Services Ltd.—PAMS—of South Kirkby in Pontefract. That company had a sole guarantor—William Melvyn Jones. Despite the fact that Mr. Jones had previously gone bankrupt, my constituent was prepared to enter into a lease in good faith. Sadly, Mr. Jones went personally bankrupt once again in 1993, and proceeded to threaten to close the company if he had to pay any further rental payments under duress. For Mr. Jones, duress meant the bailiffs coming in, as they had 17 times in the previous eight years to obtain the rent that he had agreed to pay.
During the next three months, PAMS was systematically stripped of its assets, which were effectively transferred into a phoenix company, of which the directors were the man's son and daughter. Meanwhile, the original company was being run by the same son and daughter, but with Mr. Jones effectively managing the operation, despite the fact that he was a bankrupt. He attended rent review meetings with my constituent's agents. He even wrote letters threatening to close down the business. All that was in clear breach of the company and insolvency law. All the evidence was presented to the relevant authorities.
What action was taken? To stop further transfer of assets, my constituent attempted in vain to persuade the official receiver not to discharge Jones from his bankruptcy and allow him to use the transferred assets. The official receiver failed to act, failed to instigate a public inquiry and discharged Mr. Jones from bankruptcy on 3 October 1996.
At the date of his bankruptcy, Mr. Jones owed £489,073, of which £362,000 consisted of income tax and VAT. How, I ask the Minister, could such large debts be allowed to accumulate on such an allegedly small turnover? Why, when the suspicion of fraud was presented to the official receiver, was no further action taken?
Undeterred, however, my constituent approached the trustee in bankruptcy, who openly conceded that Mr. Jones had failed to co-operate and that the trustee's office had found Mr. Jones's behaviour unnerving, if not frightening. Again, no action was taken.

983
My constituent then brought the matter to the attention of the Department of Trade and Industry investigations and enforcement directorate in October 1996. That directorate is supposed to adhere strictly to a code of practice outlined in "Investigations: How they Work", but it refused to investigate the claims and instead made an unprecedented attack on my constituent.
The directorate criticised my constituent for not taking better precautions when setting up the lease; it cited someone who had made a similar complaint, whose lone crusade had resulted in his requiring protection from two SAS officers; it mentioned that an action would be expensive and no results would ensue; and it suggested that my constituent should simply forfeit the lease and walk away—all that, rather than instigate a proper investigation of his complaints.
Still undeterred, my constituent sought support from the Insolvency Service prosecution unit. He provided clear evidence that Mr. Jones was operating the company while an undischarged bankrupt—again, no joy, because the DTI had previously considered the case, hence the prosecution unit should not do so.
To leave no stone unturned, my constituent then approached the West Yorkshire fraud squad. There was clear evidence that the company was divesting itself of assets, yet despite the fact that my constituent brought the matter to the police in October 1996, an investigating officer was not appointed until February 1997. The police then informed my constituent that the case was of little interest to them, and that investigating Mr. Jones had to be weighed against the public demand for catching real criminals, such as drug dealers.
A whole year later, the preliminary examination was concluded and the case dropped, on the grounds that there was insufficient evidence to justify further police inquiries.
PAMS, of course, has now ceased trading. My constituent has lost thousands of pounds, which should have been invested in his pension fund. Mr. Jones has taken over the phoenix company run by his daughter and son, carrying on the business as before, so that he can start all over again, leaving misery, frustration and debt in his wake.
Meanwhile, the system has failed my constituent—and many like him, I suspect. It seems that, despite the Minister's proud boast, a clever rogue director can still take the system to the cleaners, because there are too many loopholes.
The official receiver was unable to withhold Mr. Jones' discharge because of a failure by the trustee in bankruptcy to declare him unco-operative. The Department of Trade and Industry has no authority to make inquiries of a discharged bankrupt. The Insolvency Service has no power to investigate live companies. The police investigate according to budget constraints, not the pursuit of justice. How can an honest business man who is systematically defrauded hope to gain justice? What can the Minister say to my constituent that will convince him that the Government care about his plight and are interested in stamping out rogue directors?
I owe the Minister a debt of gratitude for his courtesy in responding to my constituent's complaints promptly and effectively. However, that is frankly not good enough.
984
I support the Government's broad aim of creating an entrepreneurial culture in which people of all ages and backgrounds start their own businesses. I agree that, as a society, we are afraid of failure, especially in business, where there is a fear that failure will create a lasting stigma. Investors are often not found when they are needed to support marginal businesses; banks are often too anxious to limit possible loss, and a lack of venture capital and of capitalists hampers business development for individuals who have little or no collateral.
Liberal Democrats largely support the Government's proposals in their competitiveness White Paper, which was published in December 1998 and entitled "Our competitive future: building the knowledge driven society". In June 1999, the Minister issued a press release, which stated:
For enterprise to flourish and grow in the United Kingdom, entrepreneurs, business and the public must be confident that directors who deliberately set out to disadvantage their creditors or abuse their limited liability status will be disqualified.
I believed that that was the Minister's intention. However, it is not the reality.
Some so-called business men and women are extremely entrepreneurial. They milk the system for all it is worth, leaving a trail of debt, desperation and frustration behind them. Those people are little more than criminals, and they must be fought with the determination with which we fight criminals. Indeed, many people believe that the Insolvency Bill, which is in another place, will simply create another rogues' charter.
Do the Government seriously believe that rogues such as Mr. Jones, who operate at the margins if not beyond them, will submit themselves to voluntary undertakings that would have the same legal effect as a disqualification order made by a court? It should not be up to "The Cook Report" to expose such people; the Government should protect honest business men who simply want to make a living.
10.53 pm
The Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs (Dr. Kim Howells): I congratulate the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) on securing the debate. I listened to his speech carefully. It was well delivered and constructed, and he presented a compelling case. I am sure that his constituent, Mr. Whitaker, will be pleased with that.
The case is especially difficult for technical reasons, which I shall try to tackle. William Melvyn Jones was made bankrupt on 4 October 1993. He was involved, as the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough said, in a company called Pallet Ancillary Management Services Ltd. or PAMS. The hon. Gentleman's constituent, Mr. M. J. Whitaker, alleged that Mr. Jones was active in the management of PAMS while he was an undischarged bankrupt. That is at the heart of the case.
Mr. Jones received automatic discharge from bankruptcy on 3 October 1996. Mr. Whitaker is the trustee of a pension fund, which manages a property at Lidgate crescent in South Kirkby. PAMS is a tenant of the property and Mr. Jones is a personal guarantor.
It was alleged that property belonging to PAMS was transferred to two other companies, as the hon. Gentleman said, and that its directors included Susan Wood, Mr. Jones' daughter. Mr. Whitaker made several

985
complaints between August 1996 and September 1998. The first was to the official receiver in Sheffield, who reported an allegation under section 11 of the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986. As PAMS was a live company, the complaint was forwarded to the companies investigation branch with a view to making an inquiry under section 447 of the Companies Act 1985. The case was vetted by the CIB in February 1997 and turned down.
Mr. Whitaker provided additional information in May 1997. The matter was reconsidered by legal services prosecutions and referred to the CIB, which vetted the case in June 1997 and sent for a section 447 inquiry. However, the decision was reversed in October. Mr. Whitaker used the telephone hotline in August 1998 to repeat his allegations. The case was reviewed again by the Insolvency Service, legal services prosecutions and the CIB, but it was decided that no further action would be taken.
The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough, Mr. Whitaker's Member of Parliament, requested the Secretary of State to use his statutory powers to investigate the company. Perhaps I should explain them. The Secretary of State has a range of investigatory powers under the Companies Acts 1985 and 1989 and the Financial Services Act 1986. Most often used are those that enable confidential inquiries. The start of those inquiries is not announced and they do not lead to a publishable report. Section 447 of the 1985 Act enables the Secretary of State to direct a company to produce specified documents and to authorise an officer of his or any other competent person to require a company or a person who appears to be in possession of specified documents to produce and explain them.
Those statutory powers are discretionary. They are invoked when, as the statute says, there is "good reason" to do so, which is taken to mean primarily grounds to suspect fraud or misconduct. Investigations are not undertaken on the basis of unsubstantiated rumours—not that these matters are unsubstantiated rumours. I want to make that very clear. The then Government's response to the Trade and Industry Committee report on company investigations published in 1990 included the following statement:
The Government are always ready to act in suitable cases. But it needs to be recognised that the powers conferred on the Department by Parliament are exceptionally strong and should not be abused. Each of the Department's powers of investigation require certain statutory conditions to be met before they can be used. It is important that these strong powers should only be used where statutory conditions are met and where their use is the appropriate means of getting the further information which will allow action to be taken should that prove to be required.
Section 447 enables the Secretary of State, in pursuance of his regulatory functions, to investigate and ascertain what has happened with a view to deciding whether further regulatory action—including, where appropriate, the prosecution of crime—should be taken by the Secretary of State or whether information should be disclosed to other regulators for action. Although the use of section 447 powers can be triggered by suspicion of dishonesty and although such an investigation ultimately may lead to a criminal investigation and prosecution, the investigation is not a criminal one that itself leads to a decision whether to prosecute. Nor is it an alternative to private litigation. Those considerable powers are for use in the public interest and Parliament has prescribed the
986
other bodies that may receive the confidential information that may emerge from such inquiries. They do not include creditors, who have their usual remedies.
Unless there is evidence of non-co-operation by a bankrupt during his bankruptcy, the court will not suspend his discharge from bankruptcy. As the hon. Gentleman has told us, following the report of non-co-operation—perhaps owing to an administrative error—William Melvyn Jones was automatically discharged on the third anniversary of his bankruptcy order, as the court was not convinced of the non-co-operation.
Let me now deal with the methodology behind criminal investigations and prosecutions undertaken by my Department in relation to companies in insolvent liquidation and in relation to bankrupts, which have a particular bearing on the case that concerned the hon. Gentleman's constituent.
The Secretary of State is also a prosecuting authority, and the majority of offences prosecuted by the Department arise under the Companies Act 1985, the Insolvency Act 1986 or the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986. When the Department receives allegations of criminal offences—in the majority of cases, they come from the Insolvency Service—a lawyer will consider whether a criminal investigation should take place. Any criminal investigation will be carried out by one of the Department's own investigation officers, who are experienced fraud investigators, mainly with a police background. No statutory powers are available to such officers when they are carrying out criminal investigations. At the conclusion of the investigation, the case will again be considered by a lawyer who will decide whether criminal proceedings should be instituted.
The code for Crown prosecutors is issued under section 10 of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985, and applies directly to all prosecutors in the Crown Prosecution Service. In common with other public prosecutors, the Department applies the code so that it can make fair and consistent decisions about prosecutions. The code explains that there are two stages in the decision to prosecute, and that the first stage is the evidential test. Crown prosecutors must be satisfied that there is enough evidence to provide a "realistic prospect of conviction" against each defendant on each charge. They must consider what the defence case may be, and how that is likely to affect the prosecution case. A realistic prospect of conviction is an objective test. It means that a jury or bench of magistrates, properly directed in accordance with the law, is more likely than not to convict the defendant of the charge alleged.
When deciding whether there is enough evidence to prosecute, Crown prosecutors must consider whether the evidence can be used and is reliable. There will be many cases in which the evidence does not give them cause for concern, but there will also be cases in which it may not be as strong as it appeared at first. The Crown prosecutors must ask themselves whether the evidence can be used in court, and whether it is reliable.
The decision on the sufficiency of the evidence must be made by a lawyer, with the benefit of advice from an independent practitioner such as counsel where appropriate. As the code makes clear, the "realistic prospect of conviction" test is an objective one. That does not mean that there is not room for differing views on whether the test has been passed, but it does mean that the margin of appreciation is relatively small.

987
When the decision on whether to start a criminal investigation is under consideration, regard will be had to the two tests laid down in the code for Crown prosecutors. For example, if it appears unlikely that an investigation will be able to obtain sufficient evidence to meet the evidential sufficiency test, an investigation will not be started.
The Department takes its enforcement responsibilities seriously, and is aware of the need to strike a proper balance between protecting the rights of creditors and protecting those of insolvent companies and persons. Prosecution is an important weapon in enforcement, and the Department will prosecute whenever it is satisfied that the evidential sufficiency test has been met, and that the public interest requires a prosecution.
Mr. Whitaker, the hon. Gentleman's constituent, complained to the Insolvency Service in 1996 that an undischarged bankrupt had, from December 1993 until October 1996, acted as a director of Pallet Ancillary Management Services Ltd. without leave of the court, in contravention of section 11 of the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986. There were also allegations about the improper transfer of assets to successor companies. Those allegations were repeated in a complaint by Mr. Whitaker to the hotline in August 1998.
Because those allegations touched on the affairs of a live company, they were referred to the companies investigation branch of the Department to consider whether the use of statutory investigation powers was appropriate. Officials concluded that it would not be
988
appropriate. The question of whether to start a criminal investigation was considered on both occasions. On each occasion, the view was taken that there was insufficient evidence for a criminal investigation to be launched.
Courts can disqualify directors for between two and 15 years if they are unfit. Phoenix companies are particularly targeted. The courts take such cases very seriously. The Insolvency Service has sufficient resources to pursue all identified cases of serious misconduct. In the past two years, more than 2,800 directors have been disqualified.
The business sector that is most affected, although it will not concern the hon. Gentleman, is the clothing industry, or the rag trade. The Government have been concerned at possible delays in all disqualification proceedings and will introduce a fast-track system of disqualifying directors, which will cut out the courts and dramatically reduce the time that it takes to conclude disqualification.
The hon. Gentleman said that there was a danger that the legislation would become a rogue's charter. I do not think that it will be a rogue's charter. It will help us to disqualify more of those people and to do so more easily. I am sorry that the evidential test does not seem to have applied in that case and that the good case that the hon. Gentleman made on behalf of his constituent could not be pursued any further. If there is fresh evidence, I will look at it. If I can take the case forward, I certainly will.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at seven minutes past Eleven o'clock.

Preamble
[MR. MICHAEL J. MARTIN in the Chair]

Haemophiliacs
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]
10 am
Mr. Michael Mates: I am delighted to have the chance to address you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on this important subject. I have had a long wait to obtain such a debate. As I do not often appear on the health scene in the House, I should explain why I want to discuss haemophiliacs. When I became a Member of Parliament in 1974, my constituency contained Lord Mayor Treloar college, a school for physically disabled children. At the time, the college was the primary specialist treatment location for haemophiliacs in the south-east. I became involved with it as the tragedy of contaminated blood began. I saw the children there; 80 of them were infected by contaminated blood, and 50 of them, alas, are now dead. Since then, I have been involved in the matter for almost all of my time in Parliament.
Towards the end of the 1970s, I met the now chairman of the Haemophilia Society, Mr. Chris Hodgson. He is a constituent of mine, which is a further reason for my continuing interest and concern. He suffers as a result of receiving a contaminated blood product as treatment for haemophilia, and I pay tribute to him for the work that he has done on behalf of all who suffer from this dreadful disease.
I want to draw attention to the cause of people with haemophilia who have been infected with hepatitis C through the use of contaminated blood products used in their national health service treatment. Those of us who have been campaigning for many years on behalf of such people hope to hear from the Government a new commitment to take action to help. People with haemophilia are a small but vulnerable patient group comprising no more than 5,000 people in the United Kingdom, 500 to 600 of whom live in Scotland. They suffer from a rare, lifelong genetic condition that is passed on through families and for which there is no cure. As a result of their genetic disorder, people with haemophilia lack essential clotting factors in their blood, which means that, without treatment, painful and disabling internal bleeding occurs, affecting joints or organs. Modern treatment involves injection of the missing blood clotting factors to prevent this internal bleeding. From the 1970s, that treatment became available using clotting factor replacement products manufactured from human blood. Tragically, it was through that route that some 1,200 patients with haemophilia were infected with the HIV virus and more than 4,000 were infected with the hepatitis C virus in the 1970s and early 1980s through their national health service treatments.
Contaminated blood had been used to produce the treatment products, and the haemophilia population had paid a heavy price. In 1985 in England—and 1978
122WH
in Scotland—procedures were introduced into the manufacturing process to eliminate blood-borne viruses. However, their introduction came too late for the majority of the patient group, who had been treated and were already infected. More than half the people infected with HIV have now died—a total of more than 700 deaths. Of those infected with hepatitis C—a number of whom were co-infected with HIV—figures collected by the UK haemophilia doctors organisation show that some 113 have died through liver disease and liver cancer, both of which are related to the end stages of hepatitis C. However, because no official statistics have been published on the hepatitis C-infected haemophilia population, the number of hepatitis C-related deaths might be much higher.
The progress of hepatitis C is slower than that of HIV. It can take 20 to 30 years, but when it becomes active, it is extremely damaging. Hepatitis C attacks the liver. Within the hepatitis C-infected haemophilia population, many of whom have been infected by the virus for more than 20 years, the toll is becoming apparent. Current medical opinion is that up to 80 per cent. of people infected with hepatitis C will develop chronic liver disease and that up to 25 per cent. might develop cirrhosis of the liver, which might progress to liver cancer.
I am keen to avoid, as far as possible, making party points. The saga has lasted through the Labour Administration of the 1970s and the successive Conservative Administrations of the 1980s and 1990s; now, the problem is again in the hands of a Labour Government. I was astonished and moved recently to be told by a sufferer of the debilitating illness that no Minister, Labour or Conservative, has ever said sorry that such a thing could have happened in our national health service; there have been repeated expressions of sympathy for sufferers, but no one has felt able to say that they are sorry. I am told that just to hear those words from a Minister would be a great comfort, not only to sufferers but to the relatives of those who have died. I hope that the Minister will take that on board; all right-thinking people would warmly applaud him, were he to use those words.
Unfortunately, there is as yet no fully effective treatment for the virus. Progress is being made with combination therapy involving interferon and ribavirin, which was licensed last year, but it does not succeed for all. The treatment has been shown to clear the virus in 30 per cent. of cases. People with haemophilia might be less responsive to the treatment than the general population. The treatment often carries unpleasant and, for some, intolerable side effects. To compound the anxiety and distress suffered by the community, health authorities in many parts of the country are refusing to fund the combination therapy, thereby denying the only hope of a cure to those willing to undertake the onerous treatment. I hope that the Minister will address the matter immediately.
I wish to read one sentence from a letter from Baroness Hayman, then Under-Secretary of State for Health, dated 23 July, to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook and Small Heath (Mr. Godsiff). She writes:
With regard to the funding of treatment for people with haemophilia infected with hepatitis C, we have made it clear to Health Authorities that care is to be provided for all clinical conditions on the basis of clinical need and effectiveness.

123WH
That could hardly be clearer. I have a further letter, dated 3 December 1999, from the Under-Secretary of State for Health, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath. He wrote to Lord Morris of Manchester, who continues to take an active interest in the matter:
In the meantime, we will follow up cases where there are local difficulties and where, despite the clinical evidence of benefit, people with haemophilia and hepatitis C are not receiving the therapy.
That, too, could hardly be clearer.
I shall briefly quote a third letter, from the Secretary of State for Health. The last sentence reads:
In the meantime, we are following up all the cases where people with haemophilia and hepatitis C are not receiving this treatment, when prescribed by their doctors.
Yet today—on 7 March—eight, three and two months after the letters that I have quoted were written, patients are still being denied the treatment on the ground of cost. West Hertfordshire, Sunderland and Avon are among the health authorities that say that they cannot afford to provide it, although in two recent and exceptional cases it has been allowed in Avon. Is it not a scandal that a Minister's promise is openly defied by some health authorities? Will the Department stop wringing its hands over this important issue and ensure that it runs the authorities that it is supposed to control? The defiance is unacceptable.
As a last resort, a liver transplant is the only treatment, but it does not eliminate the virus and, in due course, the new liver becomes infected. I understand that there are no official figures, but at least 20 sufferers from hepatitis C have had liver transplants and several have had more than one. The cost of a drug surely bears no comparison with the cost of repeated liver transplants. Transplants postpone but do not permanently stop the progress of the virus. Waiting lists and delays are common for liver transplants. Those living with hepatitis C therefore endure great uncertainty. Doctors are unable to predict how the virus will affect an individual's health and how soon or seriously he or she may become ill. That creates great stress and anxiety, especially for people with family responsibilities.
I was astounded to find that there are no counselling facilities for people with hepatitis C or for the dependants and families of those who have died from the infection. The Government should at least offer that, and ensure that health authorities provide for those unfortunate people. Research by the Haemophilia Society illustrates the disastrous impact of the infection on the lives of families who were already fighting to overcome a lifelong health problem. Many have had to do less work or give it up because of the effects of the virus, which has led to hardship and loss of income. Serious problems have been caused for people wanting mortgages or life insurance, once they have been diagnosed with hepatitis C. Fear of passing on the virus within families has created terrible stress on relationships between parents and children and husbands and wives. Social stigma is another result and there is evidence of people being shunned by neighbours, friends and colleagues because of the virus.
All this has come about because contaminated products were used to treat people within our national health service. The infection of people with haemophilia
124WH
with these deadly viruses has been described as one of the worst treatment disasters in the history of the NHS and even now there is little peace of mind for the patient group as there is also a threat of new variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease. Experts are agreed that there is no way of guaranteeing that blood products still used for the treatment of haemophilia are free of CJD infection. The Department of Health describes the risk as theoretical, but how must it feel for the patient or the parent of a young patient to know that the treatment relied on daily might carry CJD?
Those of us campaigning to highlight the plight of this patient group want action from the Government. The previous Government accepted that they had a moral responsibility to help those who had been infected with HIV through NHS treatment and, with all-party support in 1987, the Government established a financial assistance scheme. The Macfarlane trust was set up in 1998 to administer it and some £90 million has been made available in across-the-board payments and hardship grants. However, nothing has been done for those affected at the same time in exactly the same way with hepatitis C. The Government must correct that injustice.
In July 1998, the then Secretary of State for Health, the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), turned down the Haemophilia Society's appeal. His justification was that the harm done was inadvertent and that therefore no financial assistance was due. The same point could have been made about HIV infection. There, too the harm was inadvertent, but the previous Government accepted that they had a moral responsibility to help. We ask the Government urgently to reconsider their decision.
This is not a debate about medical negligence because the previous Government made financial help available on an ex gratia basis without any admission of liability. The same step should, in conscience, be taken for hepatitis C. In contrast with 1987, the mechanism exists, in the shape of the Macfarlane trust, to administer the hardship fund for those who suffer the consequences of receiving contaminated blood products. It would be straightforward for the Government to extend the remit of the Macfarlane trust to enable it to help for those who are affected by HIV and hepatitis C. The trust has earned the respect of all concerned by the way in which it has acted as the Government's agent for HIV infection. There would be no need to reinvent that particular wheel. It would require only a simple amendment to the trust deed and the funding to allow the Macfarlane trust to continue to act efficiently. I am sure that that would command all-party support and be welcomed as a fair and just conclusion to the inequity.
It is a shocking irony, given the family inheritance of haemophilia, that a dividing line must be drawn between brothers and cousins in the same family who have been infected by contaminated blood products at the same time. Those who were infected with HIV and hepatitis C viruses together are entitled to financial help, but that is not necessarily the case for those who contracted hepatitis C alone. For some, the infection—through no fault of their own—is a life sentence; for others, it is a death sentence. Can we tolerate such a lottery in the 21st century? I understand that other colleagues want to talk about the additional problem of haemophiliacs who have been doubly infected by HIV and hepatitis C in greater detail.

125WH
The issues are too important to let rest. The Haemophilia Society has called for a public inquiry so that all the facts about how the infection occurred and its impact on those who were infected are brought into the open. That is the least that is due to haemophiliacs who will live with the consequences of contracting HIV and hepatitis C infections from contaminated blood for the rest of their lives. Most important, in the interests of protecting public health, we need a full inquiry to ensure that lessons are learned so that such tragedies do not occur in future.
Governments in other countries have not shirked their responsibilities. In Canada, a full Government investigation was held and, in Ireland, the Government established a tribunal inquiry, which is authorising compensation payments. Closer to home, in September, the Scottish Minister for Health and Community Care, Susan Deacon, initiated an inquiry into the infection of Scottish haemophilia patients. Ministers have taken the line that Scottish cases are different. The detail may be different—heat treatment for blood products happened later in Scotland and there is the question of what information was given to Scottish patients—but the principle is the same. I trust that the Minister will agree that it would be unacceptable for a devolved Scottish Parliament to compensate victims of hepatitis C contamination in Scotland if victims in England and Wales were not compensated. That would be another unexpected consequence of the Government's hasty devolution legislation, and it would turn English and Welsh patients into second-class citizens.
I know that Ministers are sympathetic to the cause, and I hope that what I am about to say will not embarrass them too much. I have before me an early-day motion, tabled in 1995, which called on the Government to give similar financial assistance to those infected with hepatitis C as was given to those infected with HIV. It was signed by the Minister and his boss, the Secretary of State. I do not believe that they have changed their principles in four years, so their duty must be clear. I know that there are constraints in government that are not there in opposition. Nevertheless, this is a wonderful opportunity for them to be consistent in their demands for fair play for those victims.
It would do much for those who cynically believe that the Government do not care, if a reply were made to the appeal delivered to No. 10 Downing street on 23 November last year by a cross-party delegation led by Lord Morris, in which several hon. Members present today and I took part. I was saddened to hear yesterday that the appeal has not even been acknowledged, which would cost only the price of a postage stamp.
Justice requires that the Government should set up an independent inquiry into the matter, as has been done in Scotland. There, evidence has been taken from the blood transfusion service, doctors and patients with haemophilia and hepatitis C, which is being investigated by the Scottish Health and Community Care Committee. Surely, we should demand no less for victims who live in England. I should not like to have to hear the Minister justify the fact that, although the findings of the Scottish inquiry were being implemented, he was not prepared to do the same south of the border. I urge the Minister to give a commitment today to have the whole sorry affair independently examined, not just because compensation might be awarded as a result,
126WH
although the justice of that would seem to be unquestionable, but to ensure that such an unfortunate and tragic accident can never happen again and that never again will national health service patients be damaged by such a terrible mistake.
10.21 am
Mr. Bob Blizzard: I was one of those Members of Parliament who accompanied 15 representatives of the Haemophilia Society to No. 10 Downing street last November when we laid 113 white lilies on the steps, one for every person in the United Kingdom who has died from hepatitis C, contracted through contaminated blood—a very moving occasion it was too.
I joined that delegation because of one of my constituents, Mr. Tom Cole of Lowestoft. Mr. Cole suffered from mild haemophilia and, many years ago, he was given a clotting agent after two wisdom teeth were extracted. That was when his troubles began because the clotting agent was derived from donated blood, which was subsequently discovered to have come from a batch that was unscreened. That batch of blood was contaminated, so my constituent contracted hepatitis C. Mr. Cole is now 62 years old and he is a very different person from the person he used to be. Many years of suffering as a result of that damaging incident have taken their toll. Before the incident, he had a good job as a helicopter control officer on an offshore rig, but his liver was seriously damaged and his whole system was poisoned. That affected his brain so that he became confused and disoriented and, no doubt, he was also affected by the worry and trauma.
First, drug treatments, with very unpleasant side effects, were tried, but they failed to work. Eventually, it was decided that he needed a liver transplant to survive at all. He had his first liver transplant in December 1995, but unfortunately it was unsuccessful, so he underwent a second liver transplant operation in August 1996. One such operation is difficult, but two is a trial indeed.
I first discovered his case in 1996 while Mr. Cole was at Addenbrooke's, which is about 90 miles from Lowestoft. At that time, I met Mrs. Cole, who was ill herself from chronic worry about her husband's ill health and the way in which he had contracted hepatitis C, as well as from worry about how they would make ends meet because they incurred considerable costs in getting to and from Addenbrooke's. In addition, their family life was greatly disrupted. As a result of what had happened to Tom, that family suffered not only inconvenience but financial penalties. Not only did he suffer the financial loss of two thirds of his income when he had to give up his job, but his pension was affected. He had been looking forward to retirement with a good pension.
Mr. Cole does not blame the national health service or the medical profession for what has happened to him. He realises that it was no one's fault. He knows that it was unfortunate that those blood products were not tested at the time. However, he feels that it is wrong that he should suffer financially for so many years—he will continue to suffer financially into his retirement—for something for which he was not responsible.
The nub of the argument is that people such as Mr. Cole have a moral case. He is not asking for a huge litigation-style compensation payment that

127WH
acknowledges fault. He wants people in a similar position to receive some modest support that will enable them to receive the regular treatment that they need, and that will help with the cost of travelling to hospital and of the prescriptions that they often need.
The question is simple: cannot the Government perform an act of good will? Despite the fact that they have no legal liability, cannot they widen the remit of the Macfarlane trust to cover people suffering from hepatitis C? To do so would be medically and morally justified. I suspect that the Government have taken the same position as the previous Government because they have been given the same legal advice. When two Governments take the same position, one usually suspects that that is the reason.
This is a time for compassion. We want compassion to find a way through the legal tangle, so that people such as Tom Cole can receive the help that they deserve.
10.27 am
Mr. Mike Hancock: I congratulate the hon. Member for East Hampshire (Mr. Mates) on having the good fortune to win the debate lottery. I thank him also for the generous way in which he put his case. He did not attempt to score political points. He put the case that successive Governments have been involved. However, for most of those who listened to the hon. Gentleman's speech on radio or television, the question of reasonableness will far outweigh any legal ramifications or responsibilities that the present or previous Governments might have faced.
The British people who listened to the hon. Gentleman's speech will have had an insight into what those people affected and their families have faced. They would say that now is the time—albeit, long overdue—for the Government to recognise that the nation has a responsibility to them. That wrong should be righted sooner rather than later. An inquiry cannot possibly be justified, laudable though the sentiment is, because all the evidence is available. People went for treatment and, through no fault of their own, left hospital in a far worse state. The way in which the treatment was given, and the reasons why contamination took place are now irrelevant. Most of those who receive national health service treatment expect to benefit from it, not to see their lives and those of their families and loved ones systematically destroyed.
We heard of one such incident from the hon. Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard). Two friends of mine suffered from this. One, a journalist living in this country, is now dead. Sadly, he died not long after he was infected; he contracted hepatitis C and, as a result, other infections that subsequently killed him. I am sure that medically it could be argued that his haemophilia might have led to his death at that stage anyway, but his family are convinced that his death in his early forties was due to the infection via contaminated products.
Another friend, a French politician whom I met while I was leader of Hampshire county council, also suffers from haemophilia and he was infected with hepatitis C in France. The difference is that he is still alive and has received substantial compensation for what happened
128WH
to him. At no stage was there any doubt about the sort of treatment that he would receive. He did not suffer from the lottery whereby the part of the country in which he lived determined whether he received the right treatment. He and his family also received substantial sums in compensation. Nothing can ever truly compensate individuals and their families, and, sadly, for many of them any compensation would be too late. As we have heard, people and young children have died. Those lives have been needlessly lost. The nation owes sufferers some justice today. It would be wicked to allow the situation to continue. The wrong would simply be compounded. That cannot be right.
I am grateful to the Haemophilia Society for its latest briefing, which lists eight of the major problems faced by sufferers and their families. The hon. Member for East Hampshire touched on a few of those, but it is worth mentioning them again, and perhaps the Minister will let us have his ideas on possible remedies. There is the difficulty in obtaining life assurance, the reduced income through having to cut working hours or give up work altogether, and the increased costs due to special dietary requirements and medicine charges. The education of many young people with haemophilia and hepatitis C has been adversely affected and job and life opportunities have been lost. People suffer from discrimination and ostracism at work or school and in society in general. That may be difficult to believe, but one need only ask some of the sufferers and their families. They will give chapter and verse of many such incidents. They fear for their future health and leaving their dependants without financial support. With young children and heavy commitments, and an illness that has already resulted in the early deaths of many others, how does one contemplate the future financial support of a family without life insurance?
There is a lack of support and counselling services for hepatitis C sufferers. How can it be that, after 20 years, individuals and their families are still suffering from such problems? If any of us, heaven forbid, were to witness a fatal accident outside this building, we would insist on receiving trauma counselling and advice. Why do sufferers not receive what most of us now assume is available for everyone? Why are those people, through no fault of their own, unable to receive life insurance, something basic which almost everyone takes for granted? Why can we plan for our children's lives after we have gone, while they are nagged with constant worries about the future of their families? It is enough that they have to worry about their families, seeing them suffer while they are alive, yet they also know that their families will have to fight the issue after they have gone.
Other hon. Members will have an opportunity to go into further detail about effects that such individuals have had to take in their stride. The numbers are not large, but we are talking about human beings with a significant problem. As the hon. Member for East Hampshire said, the Minister and his Secretary of State signed an early-day motion. With hindsight, one could say that perhaps neither of them expected to be confronted with the same difficulties or legal advice as their predecessors were. When they signed it, perhaps they thought that changes would be easy to make when they came to office. We wish that that had been the case.
Whatever the difficulties, they cannot be as bad as those that the individuals face. They and their families are crying out for justice. Why have successive

129WH
Governments simply not got to grips with the problem and given those people the justice that they deserve? Those of us who have had the privilege of meeting them and their families have been told that they do not want huge financial payments, although I believe that they should. They want continuity of care so that there is no uncertainty about which drugs they can have, no matter where they live. Why can they not be assured today that there will be equal care, with no drugs or treatments denied and no opportunity to give them a better life not taken?
Why can we not make ex gratia payments available to them as we did to those infected with HIV? The mechanism is there. There is no encumbrance on the Government preventing them from doing the right thing. The legal opinion may be that a minefield of other issues will be created, but nothing could be worse than what those people and their families have lived with for nearly two decades. It would be a disgrace if the matter were still unresolved a year from now. At the end of the debate, I hope that the Minister will give everyone concerned the hope of seeing long-overdue justice in a matter of months. Anything short of that would be a disgrace to the nation, let alone our political system.
10.38 am
Mr. Roger Godsiff: I want to take a couple of minutes to add my support to what has been said. I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Mr. Mates) for being late and missing the start of his speech.
Like all Members of Parliament, I am frequently brought cases and causes, and I have never come across a greater injustice to a group of people during my eight years in the House. Haemophiliacs have a diminished life style. The fault is not their own; the disease that they have no choice but to live with is inherited. The 5,000 people who suffer from haemophilia put their faith in the national health service for blood transfusions. Sadly, 1,200 were given blood infected with hepatitis C, and, of those, I regret that 700 have already died.
I realise that the Department of Health sympathises with those people, just as it did with people with HIV. I pay tribute to the former Prime Minister, who insisted that the problem of HIV be dealt with. That was done through the Macfarlane trust, into which £98 million was paid, which was subsequently topped up with an additional £3 million. At the time, I spoke to the then Secretary of State, who said that the advice from his Department was, "Don't do it. You will set a precedent. Don't give way." However, the previous Prime Minister felt a moral obligation to deal with the people involved, and insisted that action be taken, and the then Secretary of State created the Macfarlane trust. I pay tribute to him for doing so, because it was the correct decision to deal with a group of people who suffered from a life-threatening disease.
Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: I confirm what the hon. Gentleman says, having been part of the delegation that initiated discussions with the then Secretary of State and having assured him that there would be no question of people taking advantage of an
130WH
ex gratia payment paid into a charitable trust. That assurance has been honoured, and I am surprised that such a procedure cannot be followed again.
Mr. Godsiff: As my right hon. Friend says, HIV sufferers have honoured that agreement. Those who, through no fault of their own, have been given contaminated blood ask not to become mega rich through massive legal claims, but merely to have, especially for their families, the same sort of provision. As hon. Members have said, once a haemophiliac contracts hepatitis C he knows that he will die sooner rather than later. Those people's anxiety relates not to their anger about having contracted the infection but to their hope for provision to be made for their families when they die.
I am sure that the Minister will show copious sympathy for those people. I do not want to remind him of the fact that he and the Secretary of State signed an early-day motion calling for justice for them. I believe that the Minister would like to help them, but I know the bureaucratic response that the Department will give, because I received it in 1998 from the then Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancreas (Mr. Dobson), who said:
The Government has proceeded on the basis that compensation or other financial help to particular patients or groups of patients is only paid out where the NHS or individuals working in it have been at fault. The needs of people whose condition results from inadvertent harm is met from benefits available to the population in general. I am sorry to have to tell you that after considering all aspects of this matter we have decided that we should not make an exception to the general rule in the case of haemophiliacs infected with hepatitis C.
He went on to say:
You have also argued that as the Government provides financial help to haemophiliacs infected with HIV this scheme should be extended to cover people with hepatitis C,
but that the Government took the view that those circumstances were different.
That was in 1998. The then Secretary of State is now entering a new life. It will be interesting to see what position he takes as the potential new mayor of London when addressing the needs of haemophiliacs. It will be interesting to see what he has to say to them and what his feelings are now on the subject.
This is a matter of justice. Haemophiliacs are not asking for the earth; they are not asking for revenge; they are not asking for mega bucks; they want only to be treated in the same way as the HIV sufferers who were infected with contaminated blood. They have done nothing wrong. They put their faith in the national health service and have no option but to continue to put their faith in it. They do not wish to have the national health service held up to ridicule. They want only justice and I hope that, when the Minister responds, he can offer that to them.
10.45 am
Dr. Peter Brand: I congratulate the hon. Member for East Hampshire (Mr. Mates) on securing this debate.
The infection of haemophiliacs with hepatitis C is something I feel strongly about since, in my medical career, I may well have been responsible for some of

131WH
them contracting this dreadful disease. When I first qualified, the treatment of haemophiliacs was largely conservative, with the use of ice packs, immobility and treatment to prevent arthritis and joint damage, which are so often a consequence of such a difficult disease. There was then a positive change in medical policy with the availability of factor 8 and other blood products to treat even minor bleeds. I am not sure whether we adequately evaluated the risks of such treatment in the late 1970s and the early 1980s.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook and Small Heath (Mr. Godsiff) rightly pointed out that we are dealing with blameless victims. Those people took medical advice; they put their trust in Government policy on the treatment of their disease, expecting to lead a more active life and become less of a burden on the state than if they had accepted the conservative treatment that might have resulted in disabilities.
The hon. Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard) made a generous speech in which he spoke of a no-fault situation. My hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) felt there was no need for an inquiry. Clearly, there is no need for an inquiry if the Government accept responsibility for those who contracted hepatitis C as a result of Government policy on the treatment of haemophiliacs. The mechanisms are there to help those people in the plight that has been so well described by right hon. and hon. Members.
If the Government do not accept responsibility, the only alternative is to call for a public inquiry, because I am not clear how long the Government were aware of the risk of using potentially contaminated products—especially where they were imported—or how long a delay there was in the identification of that risk before those products were properly treated. The Government must either accept that they have a moral as well as a legal responsibility towards those people and use the sensible mechanisms available to them through the Macfarlane trust, or accept responsibility for making all the facts clear about the change between the use of potentially infected products and the heated products. They do not have an alternative.
In the meantime, it is vital that the Government do more than write letters to right hon. and hon. Members saying that treatment and support should be available throughout the country. It should be an instruction. It is not acceptable for people to be treated according to their postcode, nor is it a matter for the National Institute for Clinical Excellence. The facts about the treatment are well established and I should not want further to overburden NICE. Apparently it can cope only with 30 investigations a year, so it would be a long time before it came up with any answers.
Sadly, the liability to support victims of therapeutically acquired hepatitis C is limited. They are dying slowly and, in some cases, quickly. We are not asking the Government for an open-ended commitment that cannot be evaluated. We know how many people are affected and we can evaluate what support they might need. It behoves the Government of a civilised country to look at their responsibility and admit that they have a role. They should then cost it, evaluate it,
132WH
seek the support of the House, which I am sure will be overwhelming, and do something for that so far ignored group of people.
10.51 am
Mr. Philip Hammond: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Mr. Mates) on securing this Adjournment debate. The hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) may have been doing him an injustice by saying that he had been fortunate in the lottery. The first debate on Tuesday mornings is selected by Madam Speaker on the merits of the subject and I am delighted that she chose the subject that we are discussing. No one would doubt that there is overwhelming sympathy for haemophiliacs. Such people are already stricken with a disabling condition and over the past 20 or so years the great majority have been stricken again either by HIV or by hepatitis C or, in all too many cases, by both. We share an instinctive horror at the thought that the very process of providing medical treatment can itself be harmful, and most would readily acknowledge that that is one of the worst treatment disasters in the national health service history.
I have a personal interest in the subject because, many years ago, fresh from university, my first job was in a company that was involved in the importation and sale to the NHS of anti-haemophiliac factors. Although I was a junior and insignificant member of the team, I knew eminent doctors, scientists and pharmacists who were undertaking such work when there was great excitement about the possibility of producing products artificially that would eliminate the risk in their manufacture from national blood products. At the time, the risks and conditions of HIV and hepatitis C were unknown and the fears that we are now experiencing were not felt.
The hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Dr. Brand) asked whether sufficient investigation had taken place before the use of anti-haemophiliac factors within the NHS. He did not acknowledge the significant improvement in the quality of life for those who had previously been encouraged to adopt immobility as a routine response to their disease. With the benefit of hindsight, we can see that something went terribly wrong, but at the time—as I remember from having been on the sidelines—it was seen as a great victory and advance in the treatment of people unfortunate enough to have the condition.
My hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire said that no one in the Government has ever said sorry for what happened to haemophiliacs. If that is the case, it is astonishing. From my observation of the scientists and doctors involved, whom I knew at the time and with whom I have stayed in touch over the years, I know that they were good people who believed that they were helping those patients. Later, with the benefit of hindsight, they realised that what they had been doing had systematically, albeit inadvertently, poisoned those people. That discovery has been a shattering blow to many of them. They are truly sorry for what has happened, although they genuinely did not realise the consequences at the time.
My hon. Friend made the case for compensation of the people affected. He said that when the Minister was

133WH
in opposition, he had signed an early-day motion calling for that. I shall not make party political points because it is clear that a groundswell of sympathy for them exists across the political divide. However, both the previous and the present Administration came to the conclusion, after careful review, that the principle that no-fault compensation should not be paid where there has been no negligence must remain as a general rule in a national health service that delivers health care free at the point of need.
There are significant problems with a no-fault compensation system. Causality would still need to be established and it may inhibit clinical practice, which is based on the best current knowledge at any given time, and may blur the line between negligence and innocent action, leading to a less accountable culture in medicine. Last, but not least, it would involve a cost to the budget. It has been said many times that any compensation should be paid from a contingency reserve, but if no-fault compensation were accepted for medical accidents in general, beyond the specific matter of haemophiliacs with hepatitis C, there would be significant budgetary implications that could not be ignored.
The main argument advanced for compensation for this group is the unusual position of haemophiliacs infected with HIV. They were treated as a special case because it was felt that HIV was a unique condition in terms of its high mortality rate and the tremendous stigma attaching, certainly in the early days, to the disease.
Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: On that point, an assurance was given that, if money were paid into the Macfarlane trust, there would be no question of legal action being taken and that has been honoured.
Mr. Hammond: I thank my right hon. Friend for that. It would be a great shame if an act of good will towards a suffering group of people who have a terrible disease became the benchmark by which other groups who have suffered as a result of medical accidents felt that they had been unjustly treated. I acknowledge the problem of deciding where, in the spectrum of medical accidents, one should draw the line, but I readily understand the apparent injustice of two haemophiliacs who had acquired similar viral diseases from transfusions of contaminated blood products being treated differently.
The general principle should be to resist no-fault compensation for medical accidents in the NHS. That was the previous Government's conclusion, and it has also been this Government's conclusion, unless the Minister is about to announce a major change today. However, I shall qualify what I have said in two specific ways. First, it is, of course, relevant only where there is no negligence. If negligence were established, for example where information—either on the risk of infection or on the seriousness of the consequences of infection—that might reasonably have been used in decisions to change the treatment of at least some patients had been available was withheld, that would be a different matter. If it were clear that such negligence had occurred, the Government would have to move swiftly, without requiring individuals to enter into protracted legal action.
In the light of the inquiry that has been instituted in Scotland, is the Minister satisfied that conditions in Scotland are different from those in England and Wales?
134WH
Does he think that, to confirm the absence of negligence, it was necessary to accede to the request for an inquiry? That is a separate issue from the question whether compensation should be paid in cases where there has been no negligence.
It is timely, in the current climate of concern about new variant CJD, that we should be discussing this issue. Is the Minister satisfied that all the lessons from the experience of the haemophilia, HIV and hepatitis C issues have been learned, even if there is no evidence of negligence in his Department? Has he identified and eliminated any systemic or bureaucratic failures in the Department of Health or the national health service? All will agree that in 20 years' time we must not be debating the case of people who have been contaminated by new variant CJD in the course of medical treatment administered in the early years of the millennium.
Secondly, there is a strong case for dealing with all medical accidents—especially those involving identifiable groups, rather than just one-off cases—on their merits. We should ensure that the response is appropriate and does not always, or only, take the form of financial compensation; it could be the provision of effective treatment and support. Although I agree, reluctanly, that automatic no-fault compensation is not the right answer for the national health service, I urge the Government to examine the mechanisms for dealing with particular hardship in individual medical accident cases, not just as it affects haemophiliacs but across the spectrum—especially, as the hon. Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard) said, where hardship has resulted from treatment to alleviate the condition.
The former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), rejected the idea of special payments on 28 July 1998. He went on to say:
The needs of people whose condition results from inadvertent harm are met from benefits available to the population in general.—[Official Report, 28 July 1998; Vol. 317, c.179WA.]
Most people would agree, on a moment's reflection, that that is a rather harsh judgment and that people suffering particular hardship, as a result of medical accidents, are not always properly catered for by the general benefits system. I urge the Minister to consider the possibility of having a middle way that, although falling short of no-fault compensation for medical accidents, goes beyond what the general benefit system provides to the public at large and offers proper support to those who have suffered from medical accidents that occur within the national health service.
Many of the problems that face haemophiliacs with hepatitis C also face the other 250,000 to 500,000 hepatitis C sufferers. That range is broad because nobody knows how many people out there in the community may carry the disease undiagnosed. Hepatitis C has been described as the real millennium bug and a ticking time bomb, because hundreds of thousands of people in this country may carry the disease without being aware of it. Some medical authorities have suggested that it has the potential to be a greater killer in the long term than AIDS. We need to consider the regime of treatment and support that is in place to deal with the disease generally, as well as in the particular case of people who have acquired it through contaminated blood products.

135WH
My hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire mentioned the apparent problem of transmitting the Government's intentions down to health authority level. The mechanism that the Government have used for that is the national service framework, which creates a clear structure and definition of what is to be expected from the NHS in a given case for a given condition. There is no national service framework for hepatitis C. Can the Minister tell us what strategy his Department has for coordinating prevention, diagnosis, treatment, care and support in cases of hepatitis C, to ensure that we have a national approach to this major problem?
As other hon. Members have said, standards of treatment for hepatitis C across the United Kingdom are variable. The interferon-ribavirin combination therapy is denied to patients in many health authority areas because of funding problems. The hon. Member for Isle of Wight said that that therapy should not be referred to NICE for a report. Does the Minister concur with the hon. Gentleman's analysis, or will the Government seek to refer that treatment to NICE for a report? If there is to be no compensation for people affected by medical accidents, the least that we need do to restore confidence in national health service treatment is to ensure that the best corrective or palliative treatment is available.
All hepatitis C sufferers are entitled to ask what the Government are doing to control the disease and to support those who suffer from it. This matter was debated in the other place, where the noble Lord Winston, whose name might not normally have come to my attention but who has recently been prominent in our health debates, said:
although the Government came to power with a promise to abolish the internal market, it is a lottery as to whether these patients are treated by the NHS.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 5 June 1998; Vol. 590, c. 673.]
He went on to put, more eloquently than I could, the case for additional support for haemophiliac patients with hepatitis C.
Faced with the tragedy of a relatively small group of people suffering from a chronic and, in many cases, grave illness as a direct result of NHS treatment, the instinct or the knee-jerk reaction of all hon. Members would be to compensate. Ministers in the previous Government wrestled with their consciences over the question, and balanced the instinct to compensate with their wider responsibilities, and with the principle that compensation is usually paid only when negligence has been evident. It is impossible not to feel sympathy with the agonising plight of haemophiliac victims of hepatitis C, but the decision not to venture into the realms of general no-fault compensation is the right one, albeit a difficult one to make in the circumstances.
Mr. Mates: My hon. Friend has been talking for some minutes about a general principle with which few hon. Members would argue. We are discussing a specific problem, closely related to another which was treated by the Government—rightly in my view and that of my hon. Friend—as so exceptional that ex gratia payments should be made, despite its being no one's fault. I want to progress not from the particular to the general, just
136WH
from one area of the particular to another similar instance affecting people with the same genetic disease, haemophilia. People find it incredible that some should be compensated and some should not. We want to remove the lottery aspect of the matter.
Mr. Hammond: I understand my hon. Friend's eloquently put view, but the problem is where to draw the line when we begin to compensate for the effects of medical accidents. I would prefer cases to be considered individually, and would also like a review of the mechanisms for dealing with hardship arising from medical accidents.
It must be right, in any case, for the NHS to provide every available treatment for people whose condition has been exacerbated by NHS treatment and to provide appropriate support and counselling. I expect that all hon. Members would advocate that as a general principle. It is not inconsistent with that general principle that the Minister should tell health authorities to give the highest priority to treating hepatitis C haemophiliacs. What practical steps is the Department of Health taking, and what practical guidance has the Minister given to health authorities, to support this defined and unfortunate group of patients and ensure that treatment is properly available throughout the country? It is not acceptable for any patient to have to wait months or years to see a hepatologist, especially in the circumstances that we have heard about this morning.
I reluctantly support the conclusion reached by the previous and present Governments that no-fault compensation must generally be resisted in the national health service—I am sorry to disappoint my hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire by taking that view—but I hope that the Minister will reassure us, and, more importantly, the thousands of victims of this terrible tragedy, by promising to examine the mechanisms for dealing with cases of hardship arising from medical accidents and by announcing improvements in access to treatment and counselling for the people affected by the accident that we are considering today. I hope that there will also be a step change in the pace of the battle against the spread of hepatitis C.
11.13 am
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Denham): I congratulate the hon. Member for East Hampshire (Mr. Mates) on raising this matter, and on doing it so effectively. There is much support and sympathy in and out of Parliament for the people with haemophilia who received infected blood products before technology could remove the infection. In the time available I hope to deal with many of the issues raised in the debate and, although I will not be able to satisfy hon. Members on all points, to show that we are more than sympathetic and have practical action in hand.
We want the people concerned to be increasingly well cared for in the NHS, to be supported in their communities and to be better informed about how to look after their health. I recognise the role of the Haemophilia Society, which has led to a forceful and moving campaign for special recognition for people with haemophilia and hepatitis C. We have worked

137WH
closely with the organisation and will continue to do so. As has been said, people with haemophilia were more severely affected before blood products were developed. Apart from the distress of the condition, they faced deformed joints and general incapacity, and children suffering from the disease typically attended special schools.
Blood products were developed from the late 1960s onwards and were a huge step forward. They were easy to use and people could treat themselves at home rather than go to hospital. They were also transportable, and people could take them with them if they went away. They improved the quality of people's lives at the time, and sufferers' longevity increased to nearly that of the general population. The ill effects of haemophilia were beginning to recede. I understand that the existence of a different sort of hepatitis virus was known in the early days of blood product manufacture. It did not have a specific name until 1989 and there was no test for it until the late 1980s. Experts advised that there was no reliable test until the early 1990s.
It was suggested that nobody had said sorry, but I was not aware that that was the case. I wonder how anybody, including Ministers, could not be sorry about the sequence of events set out today. But, as has been generally agreed, it would be wrong to confuse regret with fault or blame. If I have time, I shall trace some of the history of how blood products were treated, but I would rather concentrate initially on the substantive issues raised concerning the action that we should now take.
The outlook for the treatment of hepatitis C has progressed. The first treatment, an anti-viral therapy, became available in 1995. Work was also beginning then on the combination of interferon with other anti-viral agents such as ribavirin. I understand that the success rate of the first therapy was modest and that about 20 per cent. of patients cleared the virus. However, the second generation therapy using interferon with ribavirin has been shown to be more successful.
Interferon with ribavirin more easily referred to as the combination therapy—was licensed last summer. Hon. Members have asked about NICE. We have referred combination therapy to NICE, which is assessing it as a matter of urgency. It has recently written to the interested organisations to seek their input, and we look forward to receiving its recommendations in a few months' time. As has been said elsewhere, NICE is a key mechanism for giving authoritative guidance to the national health service on the clinical and cost effectiveness of a range of treatments. It will be a key tool in tackling the unacceptable variations of access to treatment and care that currently apply in respect of a number of different procedures and treatments.
Dr. Brand: May we have an assurance that, if the matter has been referred to NICE, it will not invoke the affordability criteria and the decision will be taken by Ministers?
Mr. Denham: As it does on all other procedures, NICE will consider the clinical and cost effectiveness of the treatment. That is set out in the rules according to which NICE operates. The fact that NICE is considering combination therapy is not a barrier to
its
138WH
prescription and provision. In response to concerns expressed by a number of hon. Members, the Government have followed up with a number of health authorities when a moratorium was imposed or about to be imposed. Referral to NICE is a key move forward in resolving combination therapy treatment issues. I understand that liver transplantation following hepatitis C, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for East Hampshire, will be taken into account by NICE as part of the process of considering the provision of combination therapy.
As I have mentioned, we place great value on the work of the Haemophilia Society, with which we shall continue to work. A key issue is the campaign that the society has run with others for a special payment scheme for haemophilia and hepatitis C infections. Several right hon. and hon. Members, including myself, signed an early-day motion in 1995 requesting that financial assistance be considered. That causes me no embarrassment because, especially in opposition, hon. Members often raise issues of concern so as to put them at the top of the agenda and require Ministers to consider them. Indeed, when the Government took office, meetings were held with the Haemophilia Society and the issue was carefully considered. Every consideration was given to the possibility of a special payment scheme for those with haemophilia and hepatitis C. During that time, we continued to work with the society on several other issues, such as our requirement that health authorities should provide recombinant synthetic factor 8 to children under 16 with haemophilia and new patients. We concluded that haemophiliacs infected with hepatitis C should not receive special payments, and some of the arguments for that were rehearsed earlier in the debate. As my right hon. Friend the then Secretary of State informed the House,
Government policy is that compensation or other financial help to particular patients or groups of patients is paid out only where the NHS or individuals working in it have been at fault. The needs of people whose condition results from inadvertent harm is met from benefits available to the population in general.—[Official Report, 28 July 1998; Vol. 317, c. 179WA.]
On that basis, we decided not to make an exception to the general rule in the case of haemophiliacs infected with hepatitis C.
Mr. Hammond: Does that mean that the Minister is quite certain that all the necessary investigations have already taken place to rule out the possibility that there was negligence on the part of the Department of Health or NHS in the matter?
Mr. Denham: In preparation for the debate and in discussion with my colleagues, I have seen no evidence that would persuade me of the need for a public inquiry or further examination of the history of the matter. Although it is outside my responsibility, I understand that the Scottish inquiry relates to a specific issue. Officials within the Scottish Executive Health and Community Care Department have been asked to examine the circumstances surrounding the introduction of heat treatment with factor 8 in Scotland in the mid-1980s, with specific reference to an alleged discrepancy between England and Scotland. It is not a general inquiry into the history of the matter but an

139WH
inquiry into a specific issue of the timing and sequence of events. The Scottish Executive await the outcome of those findings.
Mr. Mates: Yes, there was a difference, but some of the blood product that was processed in Scotland was given to patients in England because it was issued throughout the United Kingdom. What will the Minister do if the Scottish Parliament decides to compensate Scottish hepatitis C sufferers? Will he maintain his present position? That would be intolerable.
Mr. Denham: The hon. Gentleman, not unreasonably, strings together a sequence of hypotheses. Clearly, any information that becomes available as a result of the Scottish inquiry would need to be carefully considered if it were relevant to the responsibilities of English Ministers, but it is not helpful to speculate on the possible outcome of the inquiry.
I want to consider some other important issues that were raised in the debate. We have referred the new licensed combination therapy to NICE.
Mr. Hancock: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?
Mr. Denham: I should like to make progress because many other important issues have been raised, including counselling.
We are working closely with the Haemophilia Society, through a grant towards its administration. During the past two years we have supported the society's project to develop and produce information on hepatitis C for young people, their families and teachers. The material is sensible, informative and lively. We are also funding a seminar later this year for professionals on co-infection with HIV and hepatitis C. We shall continue to build on our work with the society. My ministerial colleagues have met its representatives and found the exchanges helpful.
We must take the work forward in several ways. An external group—the haemophiliac alliance—will provide additional pressure on Government. My colleague Baroness Hayman, the then Minister, wrote to welcome its formation. It is bringing together the professional groups dealing with haemophilia care, for which it is drawing up a service specification. When completed, the specification will be a significant tool for those commissioning haemophilia services, acting as an outline of the key components of a high-quality service. The alliance has asked the NHS executive to circulate information about its service specification work via the national networks, and that is being done. Haemophilia services appropriate for specialist commissioning have been identified and three regional specialised commissioning groups—in London, the west midlands, and the south-east—are studying them.
The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) asked about the way in which we were developing and supporting guidance for the service. That is one way in which we are doing that. We have also funded a group from the Royal College of Physicians,
140WH
the British Society of Gastroenterology and the British Association for the Study of the Liver to draw up evidence-based clinical guidelines for the management of patients with hepatitis C, which should be available later this year.
We have also asked the UK Haemophilia Centre directors to ensure that counselling is available and accessible to haemophiliacs with hepatitis C. Several hon. Members have raised that issue. We must ensure that the facilities at the 22 comprehensive care centres are extended to the 100 or so smaller haemophilia centres. We are also working with the directors on collecting better data on the number of people with haemophilia who are infected with hepatitis C. As the hon. Member for East Hampshire said in his opening remarks, the Haemophilia Society and others are keen to have the information.
We are always open to new ideas about the way in which we might improve the lives of people with haemophilia and hepatitis C. The hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) raised the issue of insurance cover. My colleague the noble Lord Hunt is writing to the Association of British Insurers on easing the barriers to insurance cover. I would not wish anyone to feel that our agenda on such issues was closed. I invite hon. Members to contact us with other issues that they think that the Government should be advancing.
I acknowledge the point of the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge that we must consider hepatitis C in a wider context. It is a significant public health issue, and it is important that we increase knowledge about its natural history, prevalence, transmission and treatment, so that the NHS might be equipped to deliver services based on the best scientific and medical evidence available.
We have commissioned research worth about £1 million, and we are investing a further £500,000 of research moneys specifically in research into hepatitis C and injecting drug misuse, which is responsible for most new cases. The research will investigate ways of reducing the incidence, spread and progression of the disease.
Mr. Hancock: Will the Minister give a final assurance that combination therapy will be available throughout the regions of the UK for which he is responsible to any haemophiliac suffering from hepatitis C?
Mr. Denham: If NICE is to be effective, we must await its guidance and not seek to pre-empt it. NICE has been created because, in too many areas, the national health service has lacked authoritative guidance on the clinical effectiveness and the cost effectiveness of treatments. Its creation enables us to refer therapies that have spread more slowly than expected, and treatments where there are concerns about effectiveness. Once a referral is made to it, it is important for Ministers to await its independent judgment. When that guidance is received—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody): Order.

Punjabi Community
11.30 am
Mr. John McDonnell: Two years ago, I introduced an Adjournment debate on the Irish community in Britain, partly because of my Irish background and partly because of the large number of my constituents who were of Irish origin. Surprisingly, that was the first debate on that subject in Parliament. The second-largest ethnic minority in my constituency are members of the Asian community who derive their origin from the Punjab. This is the first time that a British Parliament has specifically addressed the Punjabi community in Britain. Not only do I represent a constituency with more than 15,000 community members whose origins lie in the Punjab, but I am the founding chair of the all-party group on the Punjabi community. Some of its members may want to make brief contributions to the debate.
Language can be important, especially when dealing with Britain's colonial past, so let me first clarify an issue of pronunciation. Many of my Punjabi friends and colleagues advise me that the terms "Punjab" and "Punjabi" are colonial mispronunciations of the more exact pronunciations "Panjab" and "Panjabi". To remedy that historical error—apart from trying to learn Punjabi at a local school—I shall pronounce Punjab as "Panjab".
The Punjab means the land of the five rivers. It has a history that flows from the ancient civilisation of the Indus valley in approximately 2000 BC, through a series of empires and Mogul dynasties, to the founding of Sikhism in the 15th century. It is important to note that Sikhism is neither sectarian nor communal. Although it gave the Punjab a unique culture, its gift was secular tolerance in government and public life. The Punjab came under British rule in the 19th century and, on independence in 1947, the region was split between India and Pakistan, leaving a much smaller state of Punjab.
The relationship between Britain and the people of the Punjab in the colonial era formed the basis on which Punjabis migrated to this country in the latter half of the last century. The pattern of migration followed the pattern of settlement by my Irish community. In my area of west London, the first Punjabis often came to Britain to work in hard, low-paid jobs that found it hard to attract labour. They sometimes found work in medicine, where there were shortages of trained and skilled professionals. Before long, families were sent for and the process of permanent settlement was under way. Punjabi migration came not only from the Punjab, but from the Punjabi diaspora, which extended across the British empire, especially east Africa.
After nearly 50 years, we can celebrate a thriving Punjabi community in Britain. The industrious and talented first generation is giving way to self-confident and increasingly successful second and third generations. It is time to take stock of how the community is faring within our society and what issues the Government should be addressing in relation to it. But it has been difficult to find precise information on the Punjabi community in Britian. As with the Irish, there has been no specific question the British census to identify Punjabi speakers or Sikhs. The Government, in particular the Minister, should be congratulated on
142WH
producing the breakthrough that allows the Irish and Gaelic languages, and Sikhism as a religion, to be included in the 2001 census. However, regret has been expressed that the progressive approach has not been applied to Punjabi speakers in the form of a question on the Punjabi language. I urge reconsideration of this issue even at this late stage. The fact that members of the Punjabi-speaking community will not be counted in an identifiable form in the next census increases their fear that they do not count in the eyes of policy makers. That issue should be addressed.
It was estimated from the figures in the 1991 census that the British population included 840,000 people from India, of whom it was suggested 51 per cent. were Sikh, and 477,000 people from Pakistan, of whom 48,000 had Punjabi as their main language. In fact, Punjabi is the most common language among British Asians and has become the second language in Britain, used by an estimated 1.3 million people—including me, in a very stilted form at this stage. That is reflected in the fact that the number of entrants for GSCE and A-level examinations in Punjabi outstrips those for all other Asian languages. If central and local government bodies are to plan the provision and development of policies and services in an effective and culturally sensitive way, information is required on this subtantial section of our community, and that information can come only from the census.
Based on what we already know about the Punjabi community in Britain, we are able to celebrate an incredibly successful community. Without wishing to fall into using stereotypes of Punjabis, I believe that there are numerous examples where the dedication, talent and industriousness of members of the Punjabi community have put them at the forefront of life in the public, private and community sectors. In virtually every walk of life, members of the Punjabi community are prominent. In celebrating this success, we must also address the outstanding concerns of the Punjabi community and create an agenda of policy proposals to tackle them.
First, we need to look at the way in which we fail in many instances to support family life in the Punjabi community. In the eyes of many in that community, the visa system is still discriminatory; too often, families are split at key moments of celebration—births and weddings—and at times of sadness—sickness and funerals. Too many hon. Members have experienced the problems and the vagaries of the visa system. I applaud the Government for restoring the appeal mechanism; however, there are many miles to go to improve that system.
Many people feel that the proposal to introduce bonds is a retrograde step. First, they feel that it is discriminatory because it applies only to the Indian subcontinent. Secondly, there are concerns that it discriminates on grounds of wealth because the bond is set to high that people from low-income families will not be able to pay it. In our view, many organisations would want to fund the bond—for example, Gurdwaras in their charitable role.
Mr. Marsha Singh: Does my hon. Friend accept in part that the demand for the bond system originated in those ethnic minority communities

143WH
who saw a guarantee system as an effective way of gaining the admittance of a relative who had previously been refused entry?
Mr. McDonnell: I agree. The demand for the bond system arose largely from the Asian community itself; therefore it is important that we ensure that this reform is carried out correctly and that, when we introduce the bond system, it is done in such a way that it does not discriminate and is of practical assistance. It must not be a fob to avoid reform of the system overall and the eradication of what is often seen as racism.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Does my hon. Friend also accept that many in constituencies such as mine and his are very poor and that the bond system will discriminate against the poorest and prevent them having family reunions because they will be unable to put up the appropriate bond or find anyone to do so?
Mr. McDonnell: That is why many have expressed concern. It has been proposed that the bond be on a sliding scale, related to the wealth of the individual or family, and that organisations such as Gurdwaras should be allowed to support individual families on a charitable basis. In addition, there are many concerns about the process of applying for a visa within the Punjab, especially about the long journeys that must be undertaken to Delhi and elsewhere. For that reason, we welcome the Government's initiative in establishing a temporary consulate in Chandigah, which will be a breakthrough for the Punjabi community here and in India.
Ms Jenny Jones: I am pleased that my hon. Friend has raised this issue. A couple of weeks ago, I visited India as part of a delegation. Some of the delegation had business in Delhi and undertook the 16-hour train journey from the Punjab. My hon. Friend may be aware that the extra travelling time for those of my constituents who have to travel from the west of Punjab is an obstacle for those who may wish to apply quickly for a visa—for instance, to attend a relative's funeral.
Mr. McDonnell: My hon. Friend demonstrates the need for a more creative approach. We need to balance security and accurate decision making with the needs of the local community—particularly of those who are not not able to afford or endure a long journey, and especially people such as those mentioned by my hon. Friend who are in a state of distress.
The other problem, which has been raised in my community and in Southall, is of visas for Gurdwara priests travelling from India. The Gurdwaras and temples have a limited number of priests. Many of them were trained in the United Kingdom, but priests sometimes travel from India. Unfortunately, restrictions are placed on the number of priests allowed to practise in our Gurdwaras, even for limited periods,
144WH
and that is a problem. The number of priests in Gurdwaras in my constituency is disproportionately lower than the number of priests in Catholic churches.
Mr. Singh: Have ministers of religion in my hon. Friend's constituency been asked for work permits, as they have been in my constituency, where it has caused tremendous problems?
Mr. McDonnell: That problem was drawn to our attention only the weekend before last. At least 15,000 practitioners attend the Ravi Guru Dass Gurdwara each week, but there are only two priests; yet our local Catholic church has five priests for a similar-sized congregation. The demand for work visas needs to be reviewed.
Mr. Chris Pond: My hon. Friend is generous in allowing interventions from those hon. Members whose constituencies include a significant Punjabi community. My constituency has an additional problem; because the Gurdwara is used as the central focus for the community, the facilities are now inadequate. Would my hon. Friend take this opportunity to join me in congratulating my local Sikh community on the work that it has done to raise the money to build a new Gurdwara—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody): Order. This is an Adjournment debate. Time is limited and interjections should be very brief.
Mr. McDonnell: You can see, Madam Deputy Speaker, how much interest the Chamber has in this subject.
We should congratulate the Sikh community on the role of the Gurdwaras, in respect of not only their religious practices but their social support of the community, which goes beyond religious practice. That social support was first recognised, dare I say it, by the Greater London council; the first grant to a Sikh Gurdwara in London was presented by my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) in his former capacity. Funding is needed for community organisations in the Punjabi community in recognition of the social and institutional role of the Gurdwaras.
I move on to the question of long-standing asylum claims. The Government are now wrestling with the problem, and I welcome their proposal to give greater resources to the immigration and nationality directorate of the Home Office to tackle those long-standing cases. However, many of those claims relate to the troubles in Punjab in the 1980s and early 1990s, and a large number of asylum seekers have now settled here. They should be quickly informed that they will be allowed to stay because of their continued fear of repatriation. Their position should now be regularised.
We want many other matters of policy to be addressed by the Government. For example, for the first time, the British Government have provided financial support for the Guru Nanak college, a voluntary-aided Sikh school in my constituency. I congratulate the head teacher and my hon. Friend the Minister for School Standards on their work during the past two years to ensure that the college is properly funded; it is now

145WH
flourishing. We will now receive demands for support from across the country; for example for language tuition in state schools, and for additional cultural and educational support through section 11 and other measures in those schools, to help with the growing community of first, second and third-generation Punjabis.
We are concerned that discrimination in employment continues.
Mr. Martin Salter: I thank my hon. Friend. Is he aware that a significant section of the Punjab falls within Pakistan? Has he, like other hon. Members, been lobbied on the decision of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to declassify Basmati rice, which significantly affects trade in that part of the Punjab and Pakistan?
Mr. McDonnell: The community has raised the issue of the need to maintain links between this country and the Punjab, and Britain's role in assisting the economic development of what members of the community consider their original homeland. Issues such as that mentioned by my hon. Friend undermine that relationship and much of the aid assistance that we provide. We need to come back to that in a later debate.
There is a requirement for closer ethnic monitoring in employment. The census will give us that information and all public bodies must use it to ensure that discrimination does not occur in employment matters. I welcome the appointment of Gurbux Singh as chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality. He is a talented and dedicated professional, as I know from my experience in local government. I encourage him, through the Minister, to undertake a CRE study of the Punjabi community in Britain, similar to the CRE study of the Irish community in Britain which revealed levels of discrimination and, more important, set out proposals for tackling that discrimination in, for example, employment.
On employment, it is important to mention the military, which is now denied to many Sikhs as a career because of the helmet issue. Sikhs have a proud military history, and throughout their employment by the British Army were allowed to wear the turban. That has now become an issue of conflict that has also been raised in regard to European regulations on safety helmets in construction.
Mr. Singh: Will my hon. Friend join me in congratulating the Sikh community on the 300th anniversary of the Khalsa?
Mr. McDonnell: I will come to that. I shall not take any more interventions.
On health policy, the census should give us the information for targeted health campaigns. Several local authorities are undertaking campaigns on morbidity in the Asian community. The Government could give that more central funding and give it a fresh stimulus. The Punjabi community is demanding the elimination of the PHAB—physically handicapped and able-bodied—test, which prevents many doctors who were trained on the Indian sub-continent from working in Britain.
146WH
On culture and sport, I indeed congratulate the massive success of the celebration of the 300th anniversary of the Khalsa in the Khalsa Panth last year. I congratulate all those who came together to celebrate Baisakhi last year, through music, modern dance and the traditional assemblies of different organisations in the Royal Albert hall. I also congratulate the Victoria and Albert museum and Susan Strong on their contribution through the wonderful exhibition that they organised, which was supported by translations from one of my constituents, Mr. Rayat.
The Government should look at how we fund Punjabi community culture in this country. I draw particular attention to the applications made by various radio station groups— Appna Sangeet Radio, Punjabi FM and Saffron FM—which we could support, not only to disseminate information through the Punjabi community but to support its culture.
The Punjabi community is still attacked by the scourge of racism. I welcome the Government's measure to tackle that and the Race Relations (Amendment) Bill, which recognises institutional racism. Anyone who heard PC Kash Singh this morning on the BBC knows how far we have to go. We must first support the Black Police Association. We also need to support organisations such as the Southall monitoring group. We need to make it clear that racial harassment and abuse, attacks on neighbours and school bullying will not be accepted in the society that we want to create.
That brings me on to the issue of human rights in the Punjab itself. The all-party group has received evidence of the extent of the abuses in the 1980s and 1990s and about those who disappeared, the torturing that took place and the attacks on innocent Punjabis by police and other agents.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but I am sure that he is aware that this is a timed debate and that those in the Chamber will want to hear the Minister's reply.
Mr. McDonnell: I shall conclude my remarks in 30 seconds. The Government now have a role to liaise with the Indian Government to ensure, for example, the admittance of the UN human rights rapporteur to the Punjab to exert pressure, so that compensation and assistance are given to those families who have suffered. We have a vibrant and resourceful Punjabi community in this country of which we are proud. The Government support it and, for that reason, I welcome the opportunity to introduce the debate this morning
11.50 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Mike O'Brien): I, too, welcome the debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell) on securing it and on being elected as founding chairman of the all-party Punjabi group. I note his use of the word "Punjabi" and I shall certainly ensure that it is used in documents. I congratulate the Punjabi community, in particular the Sikh community from the Punjab, on the 300th anniversary of the Khalsa. I have attended several celebrations of the anniversary, including some in my constituency. They were important to the whole community and were enjoyed not only by the Sikh community, but by many others who attended them.

147WH
There are many Punjabis in Britain, some of whom are Hindus, some of whom, are Muslim, although the majority are from the Sikh community. Each community makes an enormous contribution to our country. As a Minister, may I, on behalf of the Government, publicly thank the Punjabi community for their contribution to Britain? We are a multicultural society and we are stronger because of that. Our culture is more diverse and more enjoyable. Our trade links are more varied; our ability to take a wider cultural perspective is enhanced greatly by the economic and social potential which comes from the Punjabi community. That is why cultural diversity is not just about having the right moral perspective on issues relating to multiculturalism; it is also good business for Britain. It is about getting right the sort of society that we can become.
Last year, I spoke at the Sikh Forum dinner, at which many business people were represented. They energise our business, reinforce our economy and create jobs for our people. One only has to look at last year's publication by Eastern Eye of "Britain Richest 200 Asians". It makes impressive reading and it is heartening to see so many young people and so many women on that list of successful people. It includes manufacturers, importers, exporters, retailers, wholesalers, industrialists, financiers, media moguls and leaders in the pharmaceutical industry and in information technology. People from the Punjabi community make an enormous contribution to our universities. Also on the list of 200 richest Asians is my noble friend Lord Paul, who came originally from the Punjab.
We have to address many problems in a multicultural society. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington said, when considering the issues that present themselves to Britain as a multicultural society, it is right to highlight the success of communities such as the Punjabi community and its people, who are examples to everyone of how our nation's diversity is prospering and flourishing as we enter the millennium. Too often, ethnic minorities are portrayed as victims of discrimination and poverty. It is important that we deal with their concerns. The Asian culture is not a culture of victims; it is go-getting, vibrant and dynamic, and contributes a staggering £5 billion a year to the British economy. Many of our Asians claim their heritage from the Punjab. Some are from families that came here via east Africa in the 1970s, although most of them were born here but still cherish their Punjabi heritage. Long may they do so.
Many people work in factories and businesses set up by Punjabis in places such as Leicester and Coventry. Punjabis have helped to create jobs in my and other areas, and have often done so where there had been few jobs previously. They have created prosperity out of unemployment, and we thank them for that.
I should like to respond to the call for consulate
148WH
facilities in the Punjab made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington. The Government are aware of suggestions that there should be more visa offices in the sub-continent to facilitate easier and faster processing of visas. The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz), recently visited the subcontinent, and has commissioned feasibility studies to establish how best we can extend services there. Studies are being carried out in Pakistan, India and Bangladesh, and we shall consider opening offices in Chandigarh, Ahmedabad, Sylhet and Lahore. We are reviewing information already received from those posts, and my hon. Friend suggested that he wanted to consider the reports in due course. I hope that we shall have some news about how we intend to proceed during the year.
We think that appeals should be reinstated, so I welcome the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington about them. There has been some confusion about bonds, so I shall clarify the subject. Bonds were introduced at the request of many people from the Asian community. People have come to my surgeries to ask whether they can put a sum down as a bond because a visa has been refused. The bonds will be raised only when the entry clearance officer is otherwise "minded to refuse" a visa. Families will not be denied the possibility of being reunited, as my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) suggested. More families will be reunited than were before. Bonds will be used only when people are not given visas. Some people have deliberately given a lot of information that makes clarification of that issue necessary.
Fiona Mactaggart: I am glad that the Minister has clarified the issue, as there is confusion in the community about it. Does the scheme apply only to south Asia?
Mr. O'Brien: The aim is to pilot the scheme for one year. The Asian community has requested that we pilot it in south Asia. That is why we have considered and are still considering how best we can do so in the light of the community's recent comments. We wanted to help, and some people have misinterpreted what we presented and sought to portray it as something other than it was.
Ministers of religion are needed and we want to ensure that all members of the Punjabi community can practise their religion. The concession about ministers of religion has been abused, so we must ensure that it is properly applied. Perhaps proper training of priests in the United Kingdom would be a solution. After all, Sikhism is now a British religion, as many people born in Britain are Sikhs. We must ensure that British Sikhs can practise their religion as they choose. The Home Office gives ethnic minority grants, so perhaps we can help. I should have liked to discuss some of the wide-ranging changes that we want to make to the national curriculum, and radio licences—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Time is up.

Arundel Bypass
12 noon
Mr. Howard Flight: It is rather a suitable day to discuss the Arundel bypass, which is not untypical of projects in other parts of the south-east. We shall hear later about the hundreds of thousands of new houses to be built in the south-east without properly considering whether the infrastructure is in place to service them. Road infrastructure is crucial, but other aspects of the infrastructure, too, do not have adequate facilities to accommodate the increases anticipated for the next six years.
I initiated the debate in order to express the extreme frustration—nay outrage of my constituents, the county council and Arun district council that a sensible proposal that dates back to 1985 has been kicked into the long grass. The strongest cross-party, cross-community support exists to solve the problem, whether it is referred to as congestion, a bottleneck or a pinch point.
As the Minister will be aware, a two-mile stretch of the A27 going through Arundel is dual carriageway both from Worthing and to Chichester. That stretch experiences appalling congestion in both directions, especially in summer. The roads programme for the bypass started in 1985 and, following substantial public consultation in 1987, in 1989 the Department sharpened up the proposal. In 1993, broad agreement was reached among the Department, the community, the environmental lobby, the county council and the district council for what is known as the pink-blue route, following a 10-volume environmental study and substantial local discussion. The pink-blue route would result in minimum damage to the environment.
In December 1996, the proposals was elevated to the main roads programme, to be implemented as soon as funding was available. Regrettably, as a result of the 1998 roads review, it was shelved. Since May 1997, I have handled more than 4 in of correspondence with constituents and the Department. At the end of last year, a private finance initiative was proposed to break the deadlock, but was dismissed without adequate consideration. The proposal is for a bypass of 6.6 km which, as projected in 1997, would cost £23.1 million.
The roads review of July 1998 remitted discussion of the scheme to a study of the scheme to be carried out at some time in the future—it used the words "expected in 2000–01", which probably means beyond that—and an environmental study of the area from Folkestone to Southampton, with its mandate worded in brave new world terms rather than dealing with the specific immediate problems of congestion. I am not commenting on the transport needs from Dover to Bournemouth, although there may be a sound case to be made for a motorway along the crucial east-west corridor. Any recommendations that may come out of that study, presumably in four or five years' time, will need to be considered by the South East England regional assembly—SEERA—and the Secretary of State. Yet again, that means further delay while the new regional development agency structure has its finger in the pie.
150WH
The local community's impression is that the Government have negated all the previous work, and ignored the urgent and growing needs of the community. Indeed, land is being designated adjacent to the A27 for most of the housing in the southern part of West Sussex. The study deals with congestion, safety and environmental problems on the south coast route between Folkestone and Southampton. Although "congestion" is referred to, the study really misses the point that there is an urgent economic need to relieve serious pinch point congestion spots. The July 1998 White Paper referred to that problem.
The issue of needing further environmental consideration was not entirely genuine, given that the environmental issues were analysed in great depth— in 10 volumes—earlier in that decade. I requested clarification on whether the bypass had been relegated to tranche 2 of the study programme, although I am not quite clear what "tranche 2" means in that context. I was told in correspondence with the Department that the Government were not convinced that the Arundel bypass scheme offered the most appropriate or sustainable solution to the problem. I would like to know how the Government feel the problem of acute congestion can be solved, other than by a bypass.
Mr. Tim Loughton: My hon. Friend will be aware of the similar problems that we face next door to him in Worthing, where a bypass has been on the cards for the past 30 years. Is he aware that one can travel from Newcastle to Portsmouth entirely on motorway or dual carriageway until one arrives at Worthing, or coming the other way, until one arrives at Arundel? Is it not absurd that, on the day the Government are confirming the building of thousands of new homes in the county of West Sussex, there is no infrastructure to take them and no road plans have been made to take those new residents and their cars?
Mr. Flight: I thank my hon. Friend for making that fundamental point. I stress that it is not thousands of new homes, but hundreds of thousands. That will affect this piece of road because the area is used extensively by people for holidays. Given the Government's proposals to turn the downs into a national park, the volume of tourists will increase dramatically.
Locally, it is regarded as a disgrace that the matter has dragged on for 15 years, wasting a fortune in terms of inquiries and mere paperwork. The problems are simple. Residents have to cross a highly dangerous road. Arundel is situated either side of it. The number of accidents is substantial. The proposed new site for the doctor's surgery is on the road that needs to be bypassed. The junction with the road from Burpham is dangerous, and there have been many serious accidents there. Inconvenience is caused to hundreds of thousands of local citizens and summer visitors. Moreover, the absence of a bypass is causing an environmental problem, because it inevitably causes back-up congestion on rural roads. Problems are also caused when people attempt to avoid congestion in summer by cutting through such roads.
In that part of the world, people typically cannot work where they live. Thousands work at Gatwick. There is no great degree of employment in Arundel or

151WH
along the south coast, and it is unrealistic to suggest that all residents can deal with their transport needs through trains and some magic integrated transport system which does not exist.
Four years ago, the Department of Transport acknowledged that there was a major problem with the embankment to the bridge over the railway on the existing route. A study as to what would be required to render that safe was promised, and was completed in July 1997. For some extraordinary reason, the study was not permitted to be made public. I cannot see what it could have contained that was not appropriate for public consumption unless there was something of concern. Three years later, I am not aware that anything has been done to make the embankment safer. If the bridge were out of action and rebuilding had occurred for a considerable time, the congestion would be completely impossible. The only practical suggestion would be to build the bypass and make the bridge hold up as long as possible, but revolution would be on our hands if it were repaired in the meantime. Looking through my files, it struck me that the administration over the past 16 years of inquiries into the matter must have cost as much in obstructing and obfuscating the bypass as the £23 million cost of building it in the first place.
As we are all aware, shortly before Christmas, the Government announced additional expenditure for rural bypasses. The chief executive of West Sussex county council received a nine-page letter from the Government on the south-east—much of which was not especially relevant to West Sussex—which failed to mention the issue. Eight rural bypasses and two urban bypasses were announced. I inspected some of those rural bypass areas, and I must say with absolute integrity that their problems are considerably less severe than those of Arundel.
The 1998 White Paper specifically referred on page 17 to the objective to tackle pinch points in transport networks that lead to major congestion. I was also perturbed to receive the following comment in a letter from the Minister for Roads and Road Safety in December 1998:
We should not presume that any scheme coming out of the study would have the same aims as the previous bypass scheme nor that its routes would be similar.
What are the aims of such a scheme if they are not to release the pinch point and the congestion? The possible routes have been discussed to many times that there is no merit in raising the issue again. My advice to the Minister would be not to presume at all.
We have spent 12 years agreeing the optimum route. What have the Government unearthed that they believe is sufficiently environmentally damaging to cause them to tear up the proposals? My constituents and I are fed up with the bureaucratic obfuscation and the money that has been wasted. This is a simple issue of dealing with a problem which can be solved because the work has been done to solve it.
152WH
I close by reading a letter sent to me three years ago by a constituent, who wrote:
I am writing from my office at Arundel station as I view the police helicopter, fire and emergency services extricating another poor victim from an accident on the section of the A27 from Arundel to Crossbush—that is the part that needs to be bypassed—
The radio reports another 12-mile tailback of traffic and those coming to see me are lost in a traffic jam a few miles away. The slightest breakdown or hitch on this wholly inadequate section of road causes massive disruption to everyone. It is high time the new route was completed.
I ask the Minister to reconsider the Government's answer in the light of the number of people who will be moving into the area in the next six years. This is a serious problem; it is dangerous and it causes chaos and inconvenience to hundreds of thousands of people who are going about their everyday lives.
12.17 pm
The Minister of State for Local Government and the Regions (Ms Hilary Armstrong): I thank the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) for raising the topic. Few can deny that the volume of traffic that passes through Arundel daily has an impact on the quality of life both of residents and of those who must use this section of A27 for their journey. Some 25,000 vehicles a day travel along this section of road, bringing with them congestion, noise and pollution. The mixture of local and through-traffic brings with it a conflict that impacts on the local environment and compromises the safety of road users and residents alike. The A27 forms part of the south coast route between the M27 and Folkestone, which provides an important link in the stragegic road network. Therefore, it is important that the route performs efficiently and effectively as part of the trunk road network.
The hon. Gentleman asked why the Government did not address the issue of the A27 in their December announcement of the local government capital finance settlement for 2000–01. The A27 is a trunk road, and investment decisions relating to specific schemes are not announced as part of the local authority capital settlement. That is why there was no reference to the road. However, that settlement represented a determination to take forward the work that local government does on highways, and to make sure that it has the appropriate funding to do it.
The Government have placed the issues that concern the residents of Arundel and the users of the A27 high on their transport agenda. In publishing the transport White Paper, we emphasised that we would seek to deliver an integrated transport system that was safe, efficient, clean and fair. The White Paper set out a policy framework that will help to extend choice in transport and secure mobility in a way that supports sustainable development. Trunk roads are a vital part of the nation's strategic transport infrastructure and must play a full part in an integrated transport system. Shortly after the publication of the transport White Paper, the Government published their stategic review of the

153WH
national roads programme against criteria of accessibility, safety, economy, environment and integration.
Mr. Loughton: Given the great emphasis that the Minister rightly places on trunk roads, why was one of the Government's first acts the dropping of every trunk road improvement scheme in West Sussex?
Ms Armstrong: I am here to answer about issues concerning the A27 in Arundel and shall carry on doing that.
The review was informed by wide consultation. In the south-east, that took the form of seminars, involving representatives of local authorities, business, transport providers and environmental interest groups, to consider problems affecting the region's trunk roads and priorities for action. In several instances, although it was accepted that a transport problem existed and needed a solution, the need for a road-based solution was not considered to have been proved. In addition, schemes were not considered for inclusion in the targeted programme of improvements if they were not sufficiently developed. The A27 Arundel bypass was one such scheme.
The roads review identified the need for a study of the south coast corridor from Southampton to Folkestone, to include the M27, A27 and A259 and rail and other public transport. That aimed at improving access to and between the regeneration areas and other areas of economic activity along the south coast. The review also announced that the future of the A27 Arundel bypass would be considered as part of the study.
The Government understand and appreciate the disappointment that many local people may feel at the decision to remit the bypass to a study. Proposals for the A27 Arundel bypass have twice been the subject of detailed public consultation. That has highlighted many residents' and road users' concerns about traffic conditions on the A27 in Arundel. Congestion brings added cost in the form of delay, pollution and accidents. To date, the debate on a solution has focused on a bypass, but that would mean costs to the environment—notably in the visual impact of the scheme as it crossed the River Arun flood plain and the effect on Tortington common and Binsted wood.
The roads review set a new strategic aim and objectives for the Highways Agency as a network operator, with a higher priority to be given to improving the use of existing roads and greater emphasis placed on environmental and safety objectives. In that context, investment decisions affecting the development of the trunk road network need to be consistent with the Government's integrated transport policy. It is therefore important for decisions that directly affect the relevant section of the A27 south coast trunk road corridor to be taken not just in a wider strategic context but after consideration of how the demand for travel could be satisfied by widening choice in transport.That cannot be done without considering how the demand for travel will change as the policy framework set out in the White Paper is implemented.
The Southampton to Folkestone multi-modal study provides the opportunity to examine all those issues in a considered and balanced manner. It is intended to deal
154WH
with congestion, safety and environmental problems along the south coast route between Southampton and Folkestone. In addition to the A27 Arundel bypass, the study will consider the future of the Selmeston bypass, Wilmington bypass and the Southerham to Beddington improvement scheme. The study will also provide a forum in which to consider any strategic issues relating to the A27 south coast corridor that are identified as part of the access to Hastings multi-modal study and the M27 south Hampshire and A27 Worthing-Lancing integrated transport studies that are now under way.
The hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs said that the area was one of the pinch points identified in the White Paper, and although it might be identified as a pinch point in the network, it is important that any investment proposals that address that issue are considered in the wider strategic context that reflects the role of the A27 south coast corridor.
The Government are aware of the importance to the local community of completing the study at the earliest opportunity. The Minister for Transport announced in March last year that the Southampton to Folkestone study would be included in the second tranche of multi-modal studies, and work on the study is anticipated to commence during the next financial year. Given the scale and complexity of the study, it is anticipated that it will take approximately 18 to 24 months to complete. Any recommendations made will need to be considered by the regional planning body, which will, in turn, make recommendations to the Secretary of State on the future of the Arundel bypass.
The Government acknowledge the importance of the A27 south coast corridor and the very real concerns of the residents of Arundel and road users. The multi-modal study provides the opportunity to address those concerns in a positive way as part of a wider strategy, which will seek to realise the potential to widen travel choice and reduce dependency on the private car. In the meantime, the Highways Agency will continue to focus its efforts on making the best possible use of the existing A27 corridor. A study has recently been completed on the junction of the A27 with Burpham road to the east of Arundel. That study examined safety concerns raised by the local community and identified a potential solution, which must now be considered further.
The structural condition of the bridge that carries the A27 over the Arun valley railway line has been the subject of some concern. A potential scheme to refurbish the structure has been developed and is being considered further.
I understand that the decision to remit the Arundel bypass will be seen by some as delaying a much-needed scheme. The truth is that even in the most favourable circumstances, the need to complete the due statutory procedures would preclude the delivery of a completed scheme within probably the next seven years. Such a time scale makes it all the more important that the Highways Agency should work closely with West Sussex county council, Arun district council, Arundel town council and other interested parties to identify and tackle many of the issues associated with the A27 through Arundel in order to limit and minimise the extent of its impact on the local community.
The Government also appreciate that economic growth and regeneration could bring further pressure to bear on both the A27 corridor and adjoining local

155WH
roads. In there transport White Paper, the Government emphasised the need to integrate transportation planning with land use planning and with policies on education, health and wealth creation. I am sure that all stakeholders with an interest in achieving a more sustainable pattern of development will look to maximise the opportunity for that development to contribute positively to the development of the transport system in the area.
The Government are actively seeking to address the need to provide an efficient and effective trunk road network as part of a wider integrated transport system. To that end, they seek to ensure that the issues and concerns associated with the A27 trunk road that passes through Arundel are addressed at the earliest possible opportunity.

Bentwood Ltd. (Chorley and Bury)
12.30 pm
Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: I did not wish to have to speak about job losses in Chorley, but unfortunately I must because a company called Bentwood Ltd., based in Chorley and Bury, has decided to close two factories with the loss of 300 jobs. The future for those jobs over the next 90 days is worrying. The Chorley and Bury sites specialise in ladies' outerwear. One hundred and eighty-nine people work at Chorley; the remainder work at Bury. The firm's contract is with Marks and Spencer.
The workers have skilled jobs, which pay well above the minimum wage. There has been continual investment in modern machinery and other equipment since the early 1980s, when the new factory was built. The workers are highly skilled, undoubtedly because Marks and Spencer requires quality garments. Pressure has been put on the work force to ensure that quality goods are checked and supplied. That has happened without hiccup for many years.
The situation has resulted from Marks and Spencer's decision not to renew its contracts for outerwear. The arrangement ends on 21 April; Bentwood Ltd. is in the 90-day consultation period. Bentwood's press statement says that it will be restructuring the business, refocusing the product range on lingerie and underwear and away from ladies outerwear. I understand why it will not comment on Marks and Spencer—its contracts are continuing and it is part of the Stirling group, which has 3,000 workers. However, the people losing their jobs at Chorley and Bury are not being helped.
Bentwood's managing director refused to meet me, the chief executive of Chorley's local authority or the leader of the council. His decision was not sensible and did nothing for British industry. If an issue affecting people's jobs arises, companies should debate it because others may be able to help, to persuade and to pursue the matter, to the benefit of those losing their jobs, who are uppermost in my thoughts.
However, let us put that behind us. The firm must have recognised its mistakes because, out of the blue, came a meeting on Friday involving a divisional director, me and the work force's union representatives. The meeting was constructive. We should give hope— I got an assurance from the director that he would return to look at the group's activities to consider whether anything could be put into the Chorley site. In fairness to Chorley borough council, it has also played a role for many years in assisting the company—it helped to clear the site and ensured that there was an easy passage for the building of the new modern factory. It has always had good relationships with industry in the town.
We should return to my original point about Marks and Spencer and the way in which it pushes costs down. Suppliers are forced to provide goods at a lower cost; most come from abroad. Marks and Spencer used to perpetuate the myth that 95 per cent. of its goods were produced in the UK; that is no longer the case. The firm should recognise that its short-term gain is a worrying long-term loss to the British textile industry. The pound is strong and there are great pressures on the company, but 75 per cent. of the money passing through the tills comes from people who have been loyal to the business.

157WH
We are asking the firm to replicate the loyalty of its customers by continuing to support the United Kingdom textile industry and Bentwood of Chorley in particular. Will it consider how it can help and give to Chorley and Bury any contracts that it can afford to award us? I am asking Marks and Spencer to ensure that we do not lose our work force, who have been loyal not only to Bentwood but to Marks and Spencer. I plead with it to reconsider its decisions and to look to its order books to find work to ensure that jobs continue. My worry is that once a factory has been broken up and closed, it cannot be put back together.
The time has come for clear labelling on garments, informing us of their country of origin and telling us how they have been produced. If people know that a garment has come from Morocco or wherever else around the world, they will know that it is not British. Many people believe that, because something is sold by Marks and Spencer, it must be British made. That is no longer the case, and I appeal to my hon. Friend the Minister to introduce clear labelling. Proper labelling is being introduced for food, and such labelling would inform people buying clothes of the country of origin, tell them what they are buying and at least allow them to know how they are spending their money.
I am speaking about a modern factory with modern equipment and about the 189 people who are losing their jobs in Chorley. I have appealed to the company to consider downsizing rather than complete closure if the worst comes to the worst. If a factory is downsized but a market upturn subsequently occurs, it can re-expand and growth can be put back into the operation. However, if it is completely closed, that is the end. There is no way forward and no means of putting together what is no longer there. Bentwood has a high-quality, determined work force. Whenever they have been called on, they have always served the company well. I plead with Bentwood: consider downsizing rather than complete closure at this stage.
I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for being present and for giving up her valuable time. I am sure that, when I plead to her, she will take on board the aspirations of the good people of Bentwood who are losing their jobs. Will you consider what the Government can do and how they can help the employers? Will you talk to other Departments to try to give an advantage to the northwest and consider, for instance, a reduction in council tax or the provision of soft loans for the company in these troubled times? If you could help to find alternative contracts—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody): Order. I have no problem with supporting the northwest, as the hon. Gentleman knows. It is, however, the Minister whom he is addressing.
Mr. Hoyle: Absolutely, Madam Deputy Speaker. I know that you are a staunch supporter of the northwest, of its industry and of the people who are losing manufacturing jobs there.
Obviously, we must consider how the industry can be given proper support and how contracts can be found. I make an appeal throughout the United Kingdom, Europe and the world: if anybody wants finished outerwear garments, please contact Bentwood. It will
158WH
supply quality goods at a fair price. If anybody listening has work, please talk to Bentwood and consider Chorley and Bury. Try to place work in our factories and save these jobs, and do not let this destruction occur.
I recognise that we have problems and that the strength of the pound is causing difficulties in the textile and other manufacturing industries, but I hope that the problem will balance out. Everything comes round, and when there is a market upturn and a new demand for British textile products, Britain must be able to respond. That is why I plead once again: even if all the jobs cannot be kept, please consider downsizing, which will preserve the factory's ability to compete when contracts return. In deciding to source outside the United Kingdom, Marks and Spencer has taken a retrograde step. There is pressure from its shareholders to deliver, but short-term gain is not good for long-term manufacturing in the UK. Body blows were delivered to our manufacturing sector throughout the 1980s. We do not want the new century to continue in the same way. Manufacturing is important, especially in Chorley and to the loyal workers who are on 90 days' notice. I plead with my hon. Friend the Minister to do whatever she can. I know that she will take that on board, and her help will be most welcome.
Mr. David Chaytor rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. Member have the Minister's permission to intervene?
The Minister for Small Business and E-Commerce (Ms Patricia Hewitt): Yes.
12.40 pm
Mr. David Chaytor: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle) for securing the debate, which gives us the opportunity to raise our constituents' concerns about the two Bentwood factories. He outlined the general situation well, and I shall concentrate on how it relates to Bury.
The Bentwood factory in Bury was established about 60 years ago and moved to its present site 15 years ago. It has a loyal and stable work force and has been a major employer in the town. I have a special interest because both factories were located within 300 yds of where I was born and brought up. However, I am here not for sentimental reasons but to represent the concerns of the 100 or so workers at the Bury factory who face redundancy in 90 days.
The background is interesting. Although we are under no illusions about what might be achieved at this stage, the problem raises important issues that involve the process of redundancy announcements and regional policy. Last year, Bentwood's parent company, Stirling, announced a significant drop in its half-year profits. As a result of that and its acquisition of a new company called Tamarind—an international outsourcing company which is based in Hong Kong—the alarm bells started to ring in the Bentwood factories and the Stirling factories in the north-west.
At the end of November, the divisional director of Bentwood addressed the work force in Bury to explain that the longstanding contract with Marks and Spencer for ladies outerwear was ending because, as my hon.

159WH
Friend the Member for Chorley said, it was transferring its sourcing overseas, but that there was a £62 million contract for lingerie. The work force were told that another announcement would be made in two or three weeks' time, but nothing happened until 24 February when the company said that the factory would close. No reference was made to the £62 million lingerie contract. That announcement came as a bolt from the blue to my constituents who expected, with good reason, to share in the new lingerie contract, although they realised that it would involve retooling the factory and retraining to upgrade their skills.
As a result of a meeting with the divisional director and trade union representatives last Friday, I understand that Bentwood intends to recruit new workers at its factory in south Wales. If Bentwood is going to recruit 70 new workers to fulfil the new lingerie contract, would it not be simpler to retain the existing work force in Bury and invest the cost that would be incurred in recruiting new workers in retraining?
It is interesting—I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to confirm this if she is able to do so—that the other Bentwood factory is in the west Wales and the valleys objective 1 area. We suspect that the company is simply relocating from an area that does not have a high level of regional assistance to one with a significant level of regional assistance and European funding, particularly for retraining. Last Friday, we were told that the cost of retraining the work force in Bury was about £250,000. Last year, although there was a drop in profits for the parent company, Bentwood itself made a net profit of £4 million. It is allocating about £4.5 million for restructuring costs; in that context, a cost of £250,000 for retraining is not excessive.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chorley and I met representatives of the work force and the divisional director last Friday and asked what consideration Bentwood had given to retraining the work force and keeping production in Bury. The answer was that that had been ruled out because of the cost. We asked them whether they had discussed this with the local authority and the local training and enterprise council in regard to what assistance might be available; they had not. I suggested that they do that quickly. I understand that there will be discussions this week and that there is the possibility of a package of assistance, albeit small scale, for the company. We also asked when Bentwood would finally announce its intentions; that question is open-ended. It is encouraging that further meetings are being held with the work force, yesterday and later this week.
I have to say the work force have behaved in a most creditable fashion. They have made it clear that they are unhappy with the company's decision, and that they were disappointed with the lack of information at the early stage. They mounted a demonstration outside Marks and Spencer in Bury last Saturday, attracting 1,000 signatures protesting against Marks and Spencer's policy of outsourcing more of its goods abroad. They have also been in touch with local small businesses which largely earn their living from the work force at the factory and are worried about the knock-on effect, and a petition is circulating among them.
160WH
Three major issues arise out of this sad process. First of all, there is the position of the British textile industry in the global market and the impact on it of lower labour costs in many countries comparable with the United Kingdom. Many think globalisation and the deregulated free market are the solutions to all our ills. However, it does not seem to be very sensible to shift textile production abroad to achieve a minor reduction in shop prices when the consequence is higher unemployment in the United Kingdom.
Secondly, there is the process of notification of the work force. We have described the imperfections in this matter and the intransigence of the managing director of Bentwood in refusing to meet my hon. Friend and me—although the company has now arranged for the divisional director to meet us. It seems to me that there are imperfections in the current system and that the loyal work force of Bentwood deserve better.
Thirdly, there is the question of regional policy. Our hon. Members in Wales have fought long and hard, as have our Government, for the designation of objective 1 status in west Wales and the valleys. There is no question but that that area is a part of the United Kingdom that is very much in need of help, and I would be the last person to deny it that assistance. Fortunately, unemployment in Bury is traditionally slightly lower than the national average. However, it seems worthy of investigation. We should know whether British companies are choosing to close factories in those parts of the United Kingdom where regional assistance is not available simply to move to areas with objective 1 status. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to comment specifically on that point.
12.48 pm
The Minister for Small Businesses and E-Commerce (Ms Patricia Hewitt): I congratulate my hon.Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle) on securing the debate. I congratulate also my hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) on their sterling efforts on behalf of their constituents in seeking a meeting with the directors of Bentwood Ltd., and in seeking to find a better way forward for the company and its work force.
My constituency forms part of a city that is dominated by the textiles and footwear trade, so I am well aware of the enormous difficulties faced by the industry and of the huge anxieties that they cause employees, who are affected not only by the intense global competition in that industry but by the difficulties experienced by most high street retailers, including Marks and Spencer. As the Minister with responsibility for small businesses—I am the textiles Minister—I work closely with the industry to ensure that the Government take the steps necessary to help the industry maintain and improve its competitiveness in these difficult global conditions.
I should tell those who are affected by the decisions being made at Bentwood how very much I and the Government regret the proposed closure of Bentwood Ltd., at Chorley and Bury, and the possible loss of 300 jobs. The decisions about product lines and location must be a matter for the company's commercial judgment. It is not possible, nor would it be desirable, for Ministers and officials to try to second-guess the

161WH
commercial decisions of Bentwood, Marks and Spencer or the thousands of other companies that operate in the United Kingdom. It is our responsibility to try to create a favourable environment in which those businesses can expand and in which employment can increase.
I shall not digress into commenting on our overall economic policy, or the real success that we are having. Instead, I shall say a little more about the work that we are undertaking with the textiles industry, and about some of the difficulties that my hon. Friends referred to. The Government have set up a textiles and clothing strategy group, which, for the first time, brings together employers, employer associations, trade unions, the Government and certain other key people, including some of the academics who are at the leading edge of research in new processes in the textiles sector. That group has been working extremely hard during the past year, and it has produced an excellent draft report. I am sure that my hon. Friends will have had the chance to read it, and I commend it to them and their constituents.
The draft report is now out for consultation. The Government will make decisions on those recommendations once we have the final report. However, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I recently met the strategy group to discuss its conclusions. A fortnight ago, I met the general secretary of the main trade union, the National Union of Knitwear, Footwear and Apparel Trades to discuss the work that that group has undertaken. The General, Municipal, Boilermakers and Allied Trades Union and the Transport and General Workers Union are members of that group. Even in advance of that, however, my Department and the Department of Trade and Industry are supporting 25 projects, all of which are designed to strengthen our textile and clothing industry. For instance, they include helping companies, many of them small, to open new export markets, with the backing of British Trade International and using the new medium of the internet. Although the relative strengths of sterling and the euro make exporting to other European countries difficult, that is not the case with the USA, because the exchange rate between sterling and the dollar has been stable for the past four years, or with Japan—or with the far east in general, with which the exchange rate has also been quite stable; indeed, at one point, the yen was falling against the pound.
By taking steps to open up export markets and strengthen the capacity of firms in the sector to market at home as well as abroad, by investing in the skills base and by helping firms, where appropriate, to move into the new, fast-growing area of technical textiles, where the United Kingdom has a world-leading position, we can ensure that, in the future, the industry as a whole is at least as healthy and successful as it has been in the past.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chorley raised the issue of labelling. Under the European Union's single market rules, it is not possible to have a compulsory country of origin labelling scheme. Marks and Spencer labels its clothing according to country of origin, as part
162WH
of the company's ethical trading system, and its customers know the origin of the goods that they are buying. It is perfectly possible for the industry to promote a voluntary labelling scheme, and there are signs that specialist labelling schemes, such as that for Scottish cashmere, which is increasingly marketed as a generic brand under which individual suppliers can go to market, are very successful. Such schemes are best taken forward through the strategies group and the industry associations and at a regional level. The regional development agencies put in place by the Government represent the best way to ensure that, at a regional level—it is a regionally based industry—we can build more effective clusters and supply chains using our existing strengths, and build further on those strengths to keep up with what is happening in other parts of the European Union and the world.
I return to the subject of the employees of Bentwood. The 90-day consultation period required by law has, of course, been triggered by the company's announcement of the proposed redundancies. In accordance with the law, the Secretary of State has been notified about that decision. That allows local partners to put in place an appropriate support package for any employee who is made redundant after the consultation period and after the company has taken its final decisions.
The training and enterprise council for Lancashire area west—Lawtec—is already working with Chorley district council and the Employment Service on a package of support for any staff made redundant. A similar process is under way in Bury. I have made specific inquiries about the success rates of similar support packages. It is not always easy to track individuals through the process and gather accurate information. The measures taken in Bury and by Lawtec for individuals affected by large-scale redundancies in the last two or three years have shown success rates of between 70 and over 90 per cent. In the case of Littlewoods, the interventions in Bolton and Bury last year resulted in about two thirds of the employees finding employment, so far as can be tracked. Those facing redundancy should not feel that there is no support and no hope. When redundancies happen—and they are always regrettable—one of the most important things that Government and regional partners and agencies can do is to get effective support in place for employees.
I welcome the fact that both my hon. Friends have referred not only to the meetings that they have had with the company, but to the meetings with the work force now taking place. The employees' representatives must get enough information from Bentwood to take part in the process of consultation that has now begun. The company is under a statutory duty to disclose information about its plans in writing and make it available to the trade union. In doing so, the employer must disclose to the employees and their unions the reasons for the proposal, the number of employees—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order.
It being One o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the sitting lapsed, without Question put.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Police Federation Meetings
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on how many occasions, and on what dates in the past three years, each regional board of the Police Federation has held special meetings. [108489]

  Mr. Ingram
  The following table shows the number of special meetings held by each region of the Police Federation for Northern Ireland in the last three years.

  Region

  Dates

  No. 1

  15 October 1999

  No. 2

  None

  No. 3

  9 February 1999; 13 May 1999; 24 May 1999; 4 November 1999; 7 March 2000

  No. 4

  None

  No. 5

  9 September 1999; 22 September 1999; 17 November 1999; 20 January 2000

  No. 6

  None

  No. 7

  28 January 1999; 2 March 1999

  New Public Bodies
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the new public bodies established by his Department since May 1997. [112668]

  Mr. Ingram
  The annual Cabinet Office publication, "Public Bodies" provides information on a range of public bodies including those in Northern Ireland. The 1997 edition lists those public bodies in existence prior to May 1997. The 1998 and 1999 editions lists public bodies in existence in subsequent years. Copies of these publications have been placed in the Library of the House. Copies are also available on the Cabinet Office website (www.cabinet-office.gov.uk/quango).

  New Departments (Titles)
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the process by which the titles of the new departments and the Information Service of the Northern Ireland Executive were decided. [112788]

  Mr. Mandelson
  The titles of the Northern Ireland Departments are set in statute in the Departments (Northern Ireland) Order 1999. The Order was made following a statement issued by the First Minister (Designate) and Deputy First Minister (Designate) on 18 December 1998 on structures (including Departmental titles) and functions across the then proposed new Departments. The statement was considered and ratified 560W
  by the shadow Northern Ireland Assembly in January 1999 and the Departments (Northern Ireland) Order 1999 specifies the Departmental titles agreed at that time.

  In relation to the Information Service this was an interim short title designed to distinguish the Information Service of the Executive from that of the Northern Ireland Office. The title would have been subject to consideration by the Executive Committee in the context of proposals for corporate identity and for a communications strategy which were in preparation at the time of suspension.

  Rosemary Nelson
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the current position on the investigation into the murder of Rosemary Nelson. [113637]

  Mr. Ingram
  A dedicated team, selected and led by Deputy Chief Constable Colin Port, continues to work tirelessly to track down and bring before the courts those responsible for this cowardly murder. This team, which consists of representatives from 25 policing agencies, including the Royal Ulster Constabulary, has in excess of 60 personnel, 60 per cent. of whom are from outside the RUC. To date they have interviewed more than 5,000 individuals, taken 1,500 statements and established 5,000 lines of investigation in their efforts to catch the killers. My "right" hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who has kept in touch with DCC Port, today took the opportunity to meet his team at one of their bases in Lurgan and to hear at first hand about the progress to date in this investigation. The Government are convinced that Mr. Port continues to lead a credible and effective investigation and welcome all the support and co-operation that can be given to the team in its work to solve this appalling crime.

  Northern Ireland Act 2000
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what are the terms and scope of the review to be carried out under Section 2 of the Northern Ireland Act 2000. [113454]

  Mr. Mandelson
  Following my decision on 11 February to suspend the operation of the institutions, both Governments will be consulting the political parties in Northern Ireland this week. These consultations are expected to continue during and after St. Patrick's Day following which the two Prime Ministers will review progress. They will focus on how best confidence can be rebuilt to enable the institutions to be restored so that the full implementation of the Agreement can be achieved.

TREASURY

  Social Enterprise Sector
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what action he has initiated since the publication of the Social Exclusion Unit Policy Action Team 3 report on Enterprise and Social Exclusion (A National Strategy for Neighbourhood Renewal) to improve access to finance for social enterprises; and if he will make a statement. [113452]
  561W
  Mr. Timms
  Since the publication of the PAT3 report, the Government have announced the creation of the Phoenix Fund, a £30 million programme to promote better access to business support and finance in deprived communities. This will include an enterprise development fund, help for community finance initiatives, and a network of 1000 volunteer business mentors. The Government have also announced that HM Treasury will have an observer role on the Social Investment Taskforce, established by the UK Social Investment Forum. This Task Force will look at the next steps in devising a strategic framework for social investment, including investment in social enterprises.

  Fuel Excise
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what estimate his Department has made of the loss of taxation revenue from excise duty and VAT from hauliers purchasing fuel on mainland Europe; [112910]

  (2) what recent studies his Department has made of the number of hauliers purchasing fuel from mainland Europe and the Republic of Ireland; and what were the conclusions of the studies. [112911]

  Mr. Timms
  HM Customs and Excise has responsibility for excise revenue. There are no current studies or estimates for the numbers of hauliers purchasing fuel from mainland Europe and the Republic of Ireland.

  Pensions
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the legislative basis is for the Inland Revenue taxing pensions on the amount entitled to rather than the amount received in one year. [112920]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The legislation governing the basis of assessment of pensions under Schedule E is in Section 41 of the Finance Act 1989.

  Tobacco Duty
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the amount of additional revenue which will be made available to the National Health Service in 2000–01 as a result of hypothecation of increased levels of tobacco duty. [112786]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Projections of tobacco revenue will be published at the time of the Budget.

  Social Investment Taskforce
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the(a) aims, (b) objectives and (c) work programme of the Social Investment Taskforce; and if he will make a statement. [113055]

  Mr. Timms
  The Social Investment Taskforce is an initiative led by the UK Social Investment Forum. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has asked the Social Investment Taskforce to report to him in the autumn 562W
  with proposals for a new strategic framework for the development of social investment in the UK. The Taskforce will:
  examine the case for social investment in regeneration and community economic development;
  identify barriers to the further development of social investment; and
  propose models for the future development of social investment.

  EU Tax Policy
  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list those third countries and dependent or associated territories which the EC Commission intends to consult, pursuant to ECOFIN's report to the European Council on Reinforced Tax Policy Cooperation. [113071]

  Dawn Primarolo
  As the report makes clear, it is for member states to pursue discussions with their dependent or associated territories in co-operation with the Commission. The Presidency and the Commission would deliberate with third countries. The geographic coverage of these further discussions and deliberations is for future consideration.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Legislation (Human Rights)
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Solicitor-General what training is being provided for Government lawyers to ensure that legislation is prepared to comply with human "right"s. [113453]

  The Solicitor-General
  The main responsibility for training rests with individual Departments which are best placed to identify the legal skills and knowledge required by their lawyers and the most economic and effective way of meeting those needs.

  Training on the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA) has been provided, and is continuing to be provided, to all Government lawyers. This has taken the form of Civil Service/GLS wide Conferences (open to both lawyers and administrators) at which outside speakers including Judges and Counsel have spoken; two intensive one-day courses provided last year by the Civil Service College, in conjunction with the GLS, and to be run again this year; and internal training programmes run by individual Departments (but often open to lawyers from other Departments) where speakers have included both specialist Counsel and Government lawyers with ECHR/HRA expertise. In addition, many Government lawyers have attended the external training courses/seminars run, for example, by leading human "right"s sets of barristers' Chambers. The introductory course for all lawyers new to the GLS also includes a session on human "right"s.

  Such training has meant that Government lawyers are fully equipped, not only to ensure that all new legislation complies with the European Convention on Human Rights, but also to advise their Departments on all human "right"s issues when they arise in the decision making process or in the context of litigation.

PRIME MINISTER

  Correspondence
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Prime Minister when he will reply to the letter dated 12 January which was sent to him by the Chairman of the Royal Society of St. George. [112482]

  The Prime Minister
  My Office has no record of having received this letter.

  National Health Service
  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Prime Minister if the five point plan for the National Health Service announced on 29 February will apply to Wales. [112912]

  The Prime Minister
  The responsibility for health issues in Wales has been devolved to the National Assembly for Wales and it is for it to decide whether or not to adopt the five point plan.

  Global Cultural Diversity Congress
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Prime Minister when he was informed of the cancellation of the Global Cultural Diversity Congress and the collapse of Global Cultural Diversity Congress 2000 Ltd, and by whom; and if he will make a statement. [112719]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 2 March 2000]My Office was informed that my "right" hon. Friend the Home Secretary had decided that it would not be justifiable to use substantial public funds to support the Global Cultural Diversity Congress on 21 February 2000.

  World Education Forum
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to attend the World Education Forum in Dakar, Senegal; and if he will make a statement. [113087]

  The Prime Minister
  The United Kingdom delegation to the conference has yet to be decided.

  Iraq
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will discuss with(a) President Clinton and (b) the Federal German Chancellor the resignation of (i) Hans von Sponeck and (ii) Jutta Burghardt from their UN assignments in Baghdad. [113359]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 6 March 2000]No.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Visitor's Bond Scheme
  Mr. Hilary Benn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list those countries outside the UK which operate a visitor's bond scheme. [113138]

  Mrs. Roche
  We do not have comprehensive information, but we understand that broadly comparable schemes exist in Canada, Germany and the United States of America.

  Police
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for what reason injury awards made to police officers in lieu of earnings remain payable after retirement age. [112556]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  An injury award is payable as a form of compensation where a police officer becomes permanently disabled for police duty as the result of an injury received in the execution of their duty.

  The award compensates an officer for the reduction in their earning capacity. In the wider context, it is considered that earning capacity should be related to a person's main source of livelihood. Therefore, where a police officer has reached retirement age their injury pension will continue to be paid where their opportunity to obtain a larger pension has also been reduced by the injury.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the police personnel procedure regulations in respect of the provision to allow those suffering from long-term sickness to have their employment terminated. [112557]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  There is no provision within Police Regulations for the termination of employment solely on the ground of long-term sickness.

  The Police Pensions Regulations provide for compulsory retirement on the ground of permanent disablement.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the applicability to current conditions of the police pension regulations; what plans he has to update these; and if he will make a statement. [112562]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  I am currently considering what changes are required to the police pensions regulations, following the current major review of all aspects of police pension arrangements. I hope to publish specific proposals in spring this year.

  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people(a) in total and (b) from ethnic minorities (i) applied and (ii) were recruited to the police in each year since 1995. [113466]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The table sets out the information requested for 1995 to 1998. Figures for 1999 are not yet available.

  The figure for the total of appointments on probation for 1996 differs from that mentioned in my reply to the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) on 11 November 1999, Official Report, column 796W. This is because North Wales Police have since corrected their figure of "0" for 1996 to "49".

  Total police officer applications and recruitment in England and Wales from 1995

  Ethnic minorities

  Total officers

  1995

  Police officer appointment on probation

  217

  5,585

  Police officer applications

  1,426

  53,909

  1996

  Police officer appointment on probation

  161

  15,712

  Police officer applications

  1,613

  42,774

  565W

  Total police officer applications and recruitment in England and Wales from 1995

  Ethnic minorities

  Total officers

  1997

  Police officer appointment on probation

  169

  5,859

  Police officer applications

  1,904

  44,334

  1998

  Police officer appointment on probation

  408

  4,961

  Police officer applications

  2,030

  36,095

  15,712 = figure updated from 5,663 as a result of a change notified by North Wales Police (delete "0" and insert "49")

  Source:

  Figures supplied by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary

  Pets
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make it his policy to encourage local authorities to use the options of(a) restriction of species range and (b) restriction of numbers under the Pet Animals Act 1951; and if he will make a statement. [112561]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Government keep under review legislation on animals, but have not announced any plans to change it. Existing legislation bears on the range of species and number of animals which can be sold in pet shops.

  Pet shops are licensed by local authorities under the Pet Animals Act 1951 (as amended in 1983), and subject to licence conditions to safeguard the health and welfare of the animals in their charge. In considering whether to grant a licence to run a pet shop, a local authority will need to satisfy itself that the welfare of the animals will not be compromised. The species and numbers of animals will have a direct bearing on the overall welfare conditions.

  In addition, certain endangered animals imported for the pet trade are also protected under European Wildlife Regulations, which implement the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). Some exotic pets can be lawfully sold to people only subject to stringent licence controls imposed under the Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976, and there are statutory restrictions on trade in United Kingdom wildlife species. It is also an offence under the Protection of Animals Act 1911 to cause unnecessary suffering to any domestic or captive animal.

  Animal Experiments
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, (1) pursuant to his answer of 10 February 2000,Official Report, columns 257–58W, on animal experiments, how many of the pigs used were transgenic; and if he will make a statement; [112633]

  (2) pursuant to his answer of 10 February 2000, Official Report, columns 257–58W, on animal experiments, how many primates were killed by order of the Home Office Inspectorate under the provisions of section 18(3) of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, on the ground that they were undergoing excessive suffering; what procedures they had been subjected to; and if he will make a statement; [112564]
  566W
  (3) pursuant to his answer of 10 February 2000, Official Report, columns 257–58W, on animal experiments, in the case of primates used in organ transplant experiments, how many primates had an organ of their own removed and replaced with a pig organ; how many had a pig organ inserted into them but kept their own organ; and if he will make a statement; [112565]

  (4) pursuant to his answer of 10 February 2000, Official Report, columns 257–58W, on animal experiments, how many of these primates were wild-caught; and if he will make a statement; [112629]

  (5) pursuant to his answer of 10 February 2000, Official Report, columns 257–58W, on animal experimentation, if he will provide a breakdown of the cause of death of all the primates used in xenotransplantation research between 1996 and 1999; and if he will make a statement; [112630]

  (6) pursuant to his answer of 10 February 2000, Official Report, columns 257–58W, on animal experiments, if he will describe the experiments in which these primates were used; and if he will make a statement; [112631]

  (7) pursuant to his answer of 10 February 2000, Official Report, columns 257–58W, on animal experimentation, how many pigs were used in (a) breeding experiments aimed at producing pigs with certain desired genetic characteristics and (b) experiments involving the removal of pig organs for transplantation into primates; and if he will make a statement. [112632]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  None of the primates were killed by order of the Home Office Inspectorate under the provisions of Section 18(3) of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 on the ground that they were undergoing excessive suffering. All of the decisions to treat or euthanase the animals were made by the relevant named veterinary surgeon.

  My previous answer explained that the majority of the primates were euthanased once they began to show clinical or biochemical evidence of terminal organ failure or when their clinical condition began to give cause for concern. The aim of this procedure is to prevent unnecessary suffering to the animals.

  Twenty-nine wild-caught primates were used in xenotransplanation research in 1996; 16 in 1997; three in 1998 and none in 1999.

  I am unable to provide answers to the hon. Gentleman's remaining questions as to do so would involve the release of commercially sensitive information on experimental design and production strategy, which is precluded by section 24 of the 1986 Act.

  As I stated in my previous answer, we understand that the company concerned has already briefed the hon. Gentleman on its xenotransplanation programme and it has indicated that it would be happy to update the hon. Gentleman and other parliamentary colleagues on the most recent position.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department with reference to table 11 of the Statistics of Scientific Procedures on Living Animals in GB for 1998, relating to procedures carried out on dogs to satisfy legislative requirements, if he will identify the legislative requirements, indicating the number of licences awarded
  567W
  in (i) 1998 and (ii) 1999 to allow procedures to be carried out and the number of procedures carried out under each licence; and if he will make a statement. [112563]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Government recognise the particular concern about the use of dogs in scientific procedures. Under the terms of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, animals may be used only where there are no alternatives and where the benefits of the programme outweigh any suffering caused to the animals concerned. In addition, certain species (including dogs) can be used only where animals of no other species are suitable. Special conditions, tailored to each project, control and minimise any pain or suffering caused.

  Examples of specific legislative requirements relevant to Table 11 (Scientific procedures (toxicology) by species of animal, type of legislation and toxicological purpose) are provided in the Introductory Notes to the Statistics of Scientific Procedures on Living Animals (Great Britain 1998). They are:

  The Medicines Act 1968;

  The Health and Safety at Work Act 1974;

  Control of Substances Hazardous to Health (COSHH) Regulations;

  Control of Pesticides Regulations 1986;

  European Union Pesticides Directives; and

  The Food Safety Act 1990.

  Table 11 records 4,275 procedures carried out on dogs in 1998. These were conducted under 39 separate project licenses. Tables 13, 15 and 16 provide further information on the type of toxicological tests used. The number of procedures carried out under each licence was as follows:

  Licence

  Procedures

  1

  50

  2

  13

  3

  28

  4

  417

  5

  50

  6

  46

  7

  180

  8

  10

  9

  28

  10

  25

  11

  18

  12

  242

  13

  4

  14

  106

  15

  290

  16

  435

  17

  483

  18

  8

  19

  6

  20

  34

  21

  18

  22

  43

  23

  9

  24

  46

  25

  98

  26

  6

  27

  8

  28

  4

  29

  93

  30

  25

  31

  253

  32

  148

  33

  24

  34

  39

  568W

  Licence

  Procedures

  35

  8

  36

  859

  37

  18

  38

  40

  39

  63

  Figures for 1999 are being collated now and are not yet available. They will be published in July.

  Senator Pinochet
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many police officers have been involved in the protection of Senator Pinochet since October 1998; [113513]

  (2) how much has been spent from public funds on protecting Senator Pinochet since October 1998 (a) in total and (b) broken down by the principal heads of expenditure. [113514]

  Mr. Straw
  The information requested cannot be provided for security reasons. The number of officers deployed to protect Senator Pinochet by the Surrey police and the Metropolitan police are operational issues for the appropriate chief officer of police.

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his estimate of the costs to public funds of Government participation in legal activity relating to General Pinochet(a) to date and (b) in total; and if he will break this information down by the principal heads of expenditure. [113529]

  Mr. Straw
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply given by the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, Lord Bassam, on 2 March 2000,Official Report, House of Lords, column WA87.

  Local Government Elections (Freepost Mailings)
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the Government's policy regarding freepost mailings at local government elections; and if he will make a statement. [112457]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  [holding answer 1 March 2000]Under current legislation, there is no provision for freepost mailing at local government elections because of the considerable financial burden which would have to be borne by local authorities, and the lack of evidence that such schemes would contribute to improved democracy at local level.

  We are now seeking two changes to this position. First, in view of the exceptional size of the electorate, we intend to provide special arrangements for the first election of the Mayor of London to allow the compilation of a single booklet of election addresses for mayoral candidates to a standard format. This will be distributed to all London electors at taxpayers' expense. For future elections, we propose that there should be an Order making power to allow the Greater London Authority to organise and pay

  569W
  for mailings (or other ways of informing the public about candidates). Any such scheme would be developed in consultation with the proposed Electoral Commission.

  Secondly, we are providing the opportunity for local authorities to pilot, at their own expense, a freepost mailing scheme.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum seekers were living in the Greater London area on 1 February. [113085]

  Mrs. Roche
  This information is not held centrally.

  Harmondsworth Detention Centre
  Mr. McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) deaths and (b) injuries have occurred in Harmondsworth Detention Centre in the last 12 months. [113007]

  Mrs. Roche
  Between the period 1 March 1999 and 29 February 2000, there was one death at the Harmondsworth Detention Centre. This occurred on 24 January when a 49-year-old Lithuanian national was found hanged. A date for the Coroner's inquest is awaited.

  During this same period, there were a total of 10 incidents involving injuries to detainees. These included six incidents where detainees sustained injury by self harm, and one incident involving detainees fighting which led to a detainee being injured. On three occasions, an accident in the Centre resulted in injury to a detainee.

  Mr. McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what review of health and safety procedures in Harmondsworth Detention Centre has been undertaken following the recent death of an asylum seeker in the centre. [113006]

  Mrs. Roche
  Following this tragic incident, immediate steps were taken to further reduce the number of possible ligatures points within the Harmondsworth Detention Centre. An investigation into the death of the detainee has been completed and a copy of the report has been sent to the Coroner. The Immigration Service is examining in detail all those recommendations that refer to health and safety procedures.

  Mr. McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the provision of an on-call Samaritan service to detainees in Harmondsworth Detention Centre. [113004]

  Mrs. Roche
  Within the Harmondsworth Detention Centre there are notices, translated into a number of languages, detailing the services of the Samaritans. Information on contacting them is also provided in a brochure given to each detainee upon arrival at the Centre. Any detainee unable to make a telephone call to them is advised to speak to a member of staff who will allow the use of an official telephone for such calls.

  A representative of the Samaritans visits the Centre once a month.
  570W
  Mr. McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what guidelines are provided to staff at Harmondsworth Detention Centre about monitoring detainees with suicidal tendencies. [113003]

  Mrs. Roche
  All detainees who are considered to be at risk of committing suicide are interviewed by staff on their arrival at the Centre to identify their immediate needs. A Suicide Prevention Committee, chaired by the Centre Manager, monitors potential suicide risks and considers what steps can be taken to minimise the risk of such an event.

  Within the Centre, those detainees who are considered to be at high risk of suicide are placed on a constant watch and may be confined to a small area where their behaviour can be closely monitored. Where the risk of suicide is lower the detainee is monitored every 15 minutes. It is recognised that the Harmondsworth Detention Centre is not a suitable location for those detainees displaying serious suicidal tendencies and arrangements are made to transfer such detainees to more suitable locations.

  Suicide awareness training has been provided by a member of the Samaritans who is also the Chairman of the Harmondsworth Visiting Committee.

  Mr. McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action his Department has taken in response to the annual report of the Harmondsworth Detention Centre's Visiting Committee in relation to the care of asylum seekers with depression and suicidal tendencies. [113005]

  Mrs. Roche
  The Immigration Service commissioned an assessment to enable a better understanding of the health needs of immigration detainees to be achieved. This was completed by Dr. Geraint Thomas, the medical practitioner at Tinsley House, and incorporated a general overview of the medical requirements, mental health and morbidity of male and female detainees and families. This was completed in April 1999 and distributed to medical health staff at Harmondsworth. The provision of nursing services at Harmondsworth Detention Centre was also extended to 12 hours each day.

  Ticket Touting
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to implement the provisions contained in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 to make ticket touting an offence at all major sporting events. [112958]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  This matter is kept under close review and representatives of other sports are periodically consulted. Section 166 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 currently makes it an offence for an unauthorised person to sell, or offer or expose for sale, a ticket for a designated football match. The law applies to football because the risk of disorder associated with that sport is increased if ground segregation is undermined by the sale of unauthorised tickets. There is no evidence to suggest that other sports are currently experiencing significant crowd safety and security problems as a result of ticket touting.

  Paedophiles
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if all police divisions in the UK have in place a computer system to exchange information with each division on paedophiles. [112915]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Police National Computer (PNC) is the premier national information system available to police officers in all United Kingdom forces, and will increasingly become available to other Criminal Justice agencies. Data on all sex offenders are held on the PNC which is accessible to police officers in all forces.

  In addition, the Sex Offenders Act 1997 requires offenders cautioned or convicted of certain sexual offences, including certain sexual offences against children, to notify the local police of their name, address and any changes, as well as their date of birth within 14 days of caution/conviction or change of address.

  Police Pension Scheme
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many officers in each police force in England have opted out of the Police Pension Scheme. [112962]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Police Pension Scheme is administered locally by individual police authorities. The information requested is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Home Detention Curfew Scheme
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer to the "right" hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) of 27 January 2000,Official Report, column 249W, if he will list, for each category of offence, the specific offences for which those prisoners released to date under the Home Detention Curfew scheme were convicted; what was the (a) average and (b) maximum sentence (i) received and (ii) served for each offence; and if he will make a statement. [112739]

  Mr. Boateng
  [holding answer 2 March 2000]A further breakdown of the original offences committed by prisoners released under the Home Detention Curfew scheme in 1999 is shown in the table. The data are taken from the Prison Service's inmate information system based on the data recorded by each prison. The maximum sentence for each type of offence, and maximum time served, could be obtained only at disproportionate cost by manually sifting the details of some 15,000 prisoners who were placed on Home Detention Curfew in 1999.

  In operating the Home Detention Curfew scheme the Prison Service has an overriding duty to protect the public. No prisoner can be placed on Home Detention Curfew without first passing a risk assessment. Where there is a likelihood of offending while on curfew, or of breaching the curfew, or where the risk to the public is unacceptable, Home Detention Curfew is refused. The effectiveness of the risk assessment is demonstrated by the fact that overall the scheme has an impressive success rate of 95 per cent. of curfewees completing their period of curfew licence.
  572W

  Months

  Average

  Offence

  Sentence

  Time served

  Manslaughter

  33.7

  15.0

  Other homicide and attempted homicide

  23.6

  10.0

  Wounding

  15.5

  6.2

  Assaults

  7.4

  2.6

  Cruelty to children

  15.2

  6.3

  Other violence against the person

  15.8

  6.4

  Sexual offences

  8.9

  3.2

  Indecent assault

  10.2

  3.8

  Unlawful sexual intercourse

  6.0

  1.2

  Bigamy

  7.4

  2.5

  Burglary

  19.1

  7.1

  Robbery

  25.6

  11.0

  Taking and driving away

  9.9

  3.7

  Other theft

  11.2

  4.2

  Handling stolen goods

  13.5

  5.2

  Fraud

  12.9

  4.9

  Forgery

  11.1

  4.1

  Drugs

  20.1

  8.4

  Arson

  22.1

  9.3

  Criminal damage

  13.0

  5.1

  In charge or driving under the influence of drink or drugs

  4.4

  1.4

  Other motoring offences

  5.4

  1.7

  Drunkenness

  4.7

  1.4

  Blackmail

  20.1

  8.3

  Kidnapping

  19.6

  8.2

  Affray

  9.6

  3.4

  Violent disorder

  14.9

  5.8

  Perjury/libel/pervert the course of justice

  10.1

  3.7

  Threat/disorderly behaviour

  9.2

  3.4

  Breach of Court Order

  9.3

  2.9

  Other offences

  12.2

  4.7

  Offence not recorded

  12.4

  4.7

  Interception of Communications
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the number of interceptions of communications on non-public telecommunications networks in 1998 and 1999 by(a) law enforcement agencies and (b) others. [111134]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The statutory framework regulating interception of communications sent by post or by means of public telecommunication systems in the United Kingdom is provided by the Interception of Communications Act 1985. This Act does not extend to non-public telecommunications networks. The Government are legislating, through the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill, to extend the law to regulate this kind of interception.

  Because current law does not require a warrant to be signed by the Secretary of State in order for interception to be carried out on non-public telecommunications networks, figures for such interceptions are not held centrally.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Parental Leave
  Mr. Hilary Benn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will estimate the cost of extending the entitlement to unpaid parental leave to staff in his Department in respect of their children born before 15 December 1999. [113136]
  573W
  Mr. Wills
  It is not known how many civil servants in the Department for Education and Employment have children born before 15 December 1999, nor how many would take parental leave if they became entitled to it. Information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  A-level Computing Examination, 1999
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many(a) requests for re-marks, (b) requests for re-marks with reports and (c) appeals against decisions were lodged with the AQA in respect of the 1999 GCE 'A' level computing examination. [112035]

  Mr. Wicks
  I understand from the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority that the information requested is as follows:

  Number

  Requests for re-marks

  188

  Requests for re-marks with reports

  85

  Appeals against decision

  1

  Bishop Gilpin Primary School
  Mr. Colman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when he will authorise the age of transfer proposals in relation to the two form entry year four at Bishop Gilpin Primary School due to go ahead in September 2000. [R] [111618]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 22 February 2000]My "right" hon. Friend the Secretary of State hopes to make a decision on the age of transfer proposals across Merton Local Education Authority by April.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Colman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when he will reply to the Question from the hon. Member for Putney tabled on 17 February relating to Bishop Gilpin School. [113449]

  Jacqui Smith
  I refer my hon. Friend to the above reply.

  Examination Scripts
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to make available to candidates the marked scripts of 'A' level and GCSE examinations. [112034]

  Mr. Wicks
  My "right" hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced on 30 November 1999 that measures would ensure access to all GCE 'A' level and some GCSE marked examination scripts in 2000 and all GCSE scripts from 2001.

  School Exclusions (Ethnic Minorities)
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many permanent school exclusions there were in each year since 1990(a) in total and (b) of pupils of ethnic minority origin. [113497]
  574W
  Jacqui Smith
  The number of permanent exclusions from maintained schools (except Special Schools) submitting returns under the voluntary National Exclusions Reporting System which covered the period from April 1990 to April 1992 was 2,910 in year one and 3,833 in year two.

  The first set of complete data systematically collected by the Department on permanent exclusions by ethnic minority from maintained schools in England related to the school year 1995–96. The latest available data relate to the school year 1997–98. These figures, which are not directly comparable with those derived from the National Exclusions Reporting System, are shown in the table.

  Information on permanent exclusions for the academic year 1998–99 is currently being collected and national estimates are expected to be published in a Statistical First Release in May.

  Numbers of permanent exclusions, including pupils of ethnic minority origin in schools1 in England 1995–96–1997–98

  Number of permanent exclusions2

  Number of ethnic minority permanent exclusions

  1997–98

  12,298

  1,995

  1996–97

  12,668

  2,113

  1995–96

  12,476

  2,196

  1 Includes Maintained Primary, Secondary, Special and Non-maintained Special Schools.

  2 Includes some pupils who were unclassified according to ethnic group.

  Source:

  January schools' census

  Renewable Energy
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what proportion of his Department's electricity is generated from renewable sources; and what target his Department has for meeting its electricity needs from renewable sources by 2010. [113052]

  Mr. Wills
  My Department has secured 10 per cent. of its supply of electricity from renewable sources, from October last year. This meets the aim set for achievement by the year 2010. We will continue to monitor developments in renewable energy provision to improve on this wherever possible.

  "Computers for Teachers"
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will extend the Computers for Teachers Programme to teachers in sixth form colleges. [112822]

  Mr. Wills

  [holding answer 3 March 2000]Schools have a legal obligation to teach IT, both as a curriculum subject in its own "right", and across all other subjects. The burden of this teaching role falls largely upon the classroom teacher. In order to provide teachers with the skills to discharge this responsibility, the New Opportunities Fund (NOF) ICT Training programme was developed specifically for teachers in schools, and it aims to give serving teachers the opportunity to raise their pedagogical capability to that now required of newly qualified teachers.
  575W
  The purpose of the Computers for Teachers initiative is to complement that training by raising teacher competence and confidence in their personal use of ICT. For this reason, the scheme has given priority to school teachers and there are no current plans to extend it to teachers in sixth form colleges.

  Global Cultural Diversity Congress
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when he was informed of the cancellation of the Global Cultural Diversity Congress and the collapse of Global Diversity Congress 2000 Ltd., and by whom; and if he will make a statement. [112797]

  Ms Hodge
  [holding answer 3 March 2000]The decision to notify interested parties of the cancellation of the Congress and the collapse of Global Diversity Congress 2000 Ltd. were matters for the company. They informed my Department on 23 February 2000 that the Congress had been cancelled.

  Free School Meals
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will estimate the(a) cost in the current financial year of providing free school meals and (b) additional annual cost of extending the scheme to include (i) children in full-time education whose families are in receipt of working families tax credit and (ii) all children in full-time education. [112946]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Department does not collect information on the cost of providing free school meals. We estimate that(a) the cost of providing free school meals in England in the current financial year is over £300 million; and that (b) the additional annual cost of (i) extending free school meals to children in full-time education whose families are in receipt of working families tax credit would be over £400 million; and
  (ii) extending free school meals to all children would be almost £2 billion.

  We have no current plans to extend eligibility for free school meals, which would require primary legislation, but we are working closely with the Child Poverty Action Group on ways of increasing take-up by entitled pupils.

  Physical Education
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many pupils at(a) primary and (b) secondary schools are currently meeting the Government's target that they participate in more than two hours a week of physical education. [112957]

  Jacqui Smith
  Ofsted collects information about the percentage of taught time for each subject when inspecting schools. The number of school hours spent on physical education varies from school to school. Evidence from Ofsted inspections during 1998 of the average number of hours per week primary and secondary schools currently spend teaching National Curriculum PE is as follows.
  576W

  Average hours of PE per week (approx.)

  Key Stage 1 (ages 5–7)

  1 hour 20 minutes

  Key Stage 2 (ages 7–11)

  1 hour 35 minutes

  Key Stage 3 (ages 11–14)

  2 hours

  Key Stage 4 (ages (14–16)

  1 hour 15 minutes

  Our aspiration is that pupils receive two hours of physical activity a week, including the National Curriculum and extra curricular activities.

  My officials are meeting regularly with DCMS and representatives of PE and sports organisations to discuss ways of promoting this.

  Computers on Loan
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what progress has been made towards the provision of computers on loan as outlined in his speech of 28 October 1999 to the United Kingdom Internet Summit. [112642]

  Mr. Wills
  The Government are making £15 million available for a pilot scheme—`Computers Within Reach'—to enable those who cannot afford new computers to acquire reconditioned computers for use in the home on a loaned or owned basis for the purpose of improving their employment prospects, for lifelong learning, or for their children's homework. The pilot scheme will run from May, and evaluation findings of the initiative will be made available in due course.

  New Public Bodies
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the new public bodies established by his Department since May 1997. [112662]

  Mr. Wills
  The annual Cabinet Office publication `Public Bodies' provides information on a range of public bodies. The 1997 edition lists those bodies in existence prior to May 1997. The 1998 and 1999 editions list public bodies in existence in subsequent years. Copies of these publications have been placed in the Library of the House. Copies are also available on the Cabinet Office website (www.cabinet-office.gov.uk/quango).

  EU Discussions (Schools)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on his Department's policy respecting the maintenance of political neutrality in discussing the future of the EU in schools. [112341]

  Jacqui Smith
  Pupils in England are taught about Europe and the European Union at secondary school. From the start of the school year 2000 they will be taught about the history of Britain in its European and wider context within National Curriculum History and from 2002 they will be taught about the world as a global community, the role of the European Union and the UK's relations in Europe, including the European Union in National Curriculum Citizenship.
  577W
  There are safeguards in law to ensure that where political issues are discussed in school it is in an unbiased and balanced way. Local Education Authorities, governing bodies and head teachers are required under section 407 of the Education Act 1996 to take such steps as are reasonably practicable to secure that where political issues are brought to the attention of pupils, they are offered a balanced presentation of opposing views.

  Racism
  Lorna Fitzsimons
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) what proportion of(a) primary schools, (b) secondary schools and (c) colleges of further education have procedures in place to record racist incidents; [111291]

  (2) what was the total number of racist incidents recorded during the period 15 April 1999 to 31 December 1999 in England in (a) primary schools, (b) secondary schools and (c) colleges of further education. [111292]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 22 February 2000]Our "Social Inclusion: Pupil Support" guidance in July 1999 states that all schools' behaviour policies must make clear that racial harassment will not be tolerated, and say how staff and pupils should deal with it. Schools should record all racial incidents and parents and Governors should be informed of such incidents and the action taken to deal with them. Governing bodies should inform LEAs annually of the pattern and frequency of any incidents. Colleges of Further Education have policies in place to deal with complaints, and procedures to investigate incidents. Information on the total number of racist incidents recorded in schools and colleges in England during the period 15 April 1999 to 31 December 1999 is not held centrally.

  New Deal
  Mr. Alexander
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many calls have been made to the New Deal Hotline in(a) Scotland and (b) the UK; how many were from (i) clients and (ii) employers; and how many were (1) positive comments and (2) complaints. [111137]

  Ms Jowell
  In the period October 1998 (when records started) to January 2000; a total of 1,652 calls were made to the New Deal Hotline of which 376 came from Scotland. We do not disaggregate the source of calls by category of caller and only the complaints are identified separately from all other calls. In the UK, 344 of the calls made were classed as complaints of which 62 came from Scotland. The Employment Service follows up every complaint to a conclusion.

  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what proportion of New Deal participants who have undertaken an option have moved into the employment option; to what extent Government targets in exercise of the employment option have been achieved; and if he will make a statement. [109283]

  Ms Jowell
  Since the start of New Deal 7.9 per cent. of young people leaving Gateway have moved onto the employment option. Although this is less than the original planning assumption, a further 35.5 per cent. have gone 578W
  directly into unsubsidised jobs. Together these figures demonstrate how New Deal significantly improves the changes of many young people finding work.

  Child Care
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what percentage of people had access to Government-funded child care(a) in rural areas and (b) in urban areas, (i) in the most recent year for which figures are available and (ii) five years ago. [111976]

  Ms Hodge
  We are unable to provide the information in the format requested, but can provide data on the overall number of new child care places created through government funding. In 1998–99 some 66,000 new child care places were funded through the Out of School Childcare Initiative, the Further Education Funding Council and DfEE grants to Early Years Development Partnerships. This compares with 22,286 new child care places created by the Out of School Childcare Initiative in 1994–95.

  Early Years Development and Childcare Partnerships (EYDCPs) are responsible for ensuring full coverage of both urban and rural areas within their areas of remit. EYDCPs have been set up in every local authority area of England. DfEE's planning guidance to Partnerships requires them to pay particular attention to the development and maintenance of provision in rural areas.

  Equal Treatment Directive
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on his policy on the proposed Commission directive on equal treatment, as set out in COM (1999) 566, with particular reference to(a) gender mainstreaming, (b) minimum entitlement to redress, (c) burden of proof, (d) indirect discrimination, (e) definition of harassment and (f) positive discrimination. [112350]

  Ms Hodge
  The Government welcome the European Commission's proposal for a directive covering discrimination on the grounds of race (COM (1999) 566) as an important contribution to combating racial discrimination throughout member states and accession countries. The proposal raises a number of issues including those mentioned by the hon. Member in his question and we will be considering the full implications of these during the course of negotiations. Negotiations are still at an early stage within the Working Group of the Social Affairs Council and adoption will require unanimous agreement by the member states.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Fisheries Protection Work
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the impact of the review of MAFF grant in aid on fisheries work undertaken by the Environment Agency and other fisheries protection work. [113343]

  Mr. Morley
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) on 27 October 1999,Official Report, column 922W.

  Flood Defence
  Dr. Naysmith
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if a definition of the developed environment exists allowing flood defence committees to ensure that the risk of flooding is minimised. [111584]

  Mr. Morley
  The Government's policy is to reduce the risk to people and the developed and natural environment from flooding and erosion.
  The phrase "developed and natural environment" is intended to embrace all of the country's assets. No firm definition of the term "developed environment" exists for the purposes of flood and coastal defence but we generally regard it as land on which development has taken place, for example buildings and roads, as compared with the natural environment which would generally be undeveloped land.

  Proportional mortality ratios by occupation, men aged 20–64, England and Wales, 1982–87 and 1991–96 PMRs which are significantly high1

  Occupation2

  PMR

  Confidence interval Lower/Upper

  Number of suicides

  1982–87

  Veterinarians

  349

  (203–559)

  17

  Farmers, horticulturists, farm managers

  202

  (180–226)

  311

  Librarians, Information officers

  226

  (140–345)

  21

  Pharmacists

  214

  (140–313)

  26

  Medical practitioners

  175

  (138–218)

  78

  Dental practitioners

  192

  (117–296)

  20

  Deck, engine-room hands, bargemen, lightermen, boatmen

  144

  (117–176)

  95

  Teachers (not elsewhere classified)

  132

  (116–150)

  233

  Gardeners, groundsmen

  134

  (116–154)

  197

  Hotel porters

  171

  (113–249)

  27

  Other domestic and school helpers

  175

  (111–262)

  23

  Forestry workers

  173

  (107–264)

  21

  Shop salesmen and assistants

  123

  (106–141)

  196

  Driving instructors (not HGV)

  152

  (106–213)

  34

  Chemical scientists

  153

  (105–215)

  33

  Sales representatives

  116

  (101–134)

  203

  Farm workers

  120

  (101–141)

  142

  1991–96

  Dental practitioners

  249

  (161–367)

  25

  Veterinarians

  324

  (148–615)

  9

  Farmers, horticulturists, farm managers

  144

  (124–166)

  190

  Sales representatives—property and services

  151

  (122–184)

  97

  Medical practitioners

  147

  (115–185)

  71

  Garage proprietors

  155

  (112–208)

  43

  Pharmacists

  171

  (111–252)

  25

  Other motor drivers

  124

  (108–141)

  221

  Painters and decorators, french polishers

  119

  (108–132)

  389

  Publicans

  128

  (107–152)

  129

  Builders

  119

  (106–132)

  332

  Cleaners, window cleaners, road sweepers

  122

  (105–139)

  204

  Shop salesmen and assistants

  118

  (105–133)

  296

  Carpenters and joiners

  115

  (103–127)

  384

  Gardeners, groundsmen

  117

  (102–133)

  234

  1 95 per cent. confidence interval does not include 100

  2 Occupations listed in descending order of lower confidence interval

  Source:

  Office for National Statistics—series, Population Trends, Number 92, Summer 1998.

  Euro
  Mr. Portillo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much money has been spent to date by his Department and by bodies funded by his Department
  580W

  In prioritising funding for flood and coastal defence works one factor which the Government takes into account is whether schemes will protect "urban" or "rural" areas. A scheme will be classified as "urban" only where 50 per cent. or more of the calculated direct benefits relate to industrial, commercial or domestic property, or major infrastructure.

  Farmer Suicides
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many suicides amongst farmers have been recorded in each of the past five years. [110528]

  Mr. Morley
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) on 7 February 2000,Official Report, column 77W.

  In addition, the hon. Member may be interested in the information given in the table:

  in connection with the National Changeover Plan; on what headings this money has been spent; and how much his Department plans to spend on implementing the plan over the next 12 months. [112139]
  581W
  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 29 February 2000]I refer the "right" hon. Member to the answer that my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary gave on 29 February 2000,Official Report, column 233W.

  Fishing Quotas
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received from the European Commission on further action against discrimination in the awarding of fishing quotas, with reference to OJ C354/67, vol 42, 7.12.99; and if he will make a statement. [112648]

  Mr. Morley
  As OJ 354/67 states on 14 January 1998 the United Kingdom received a reasoned opinion in respect of the procedures adopted in the UK for allocating quotas. We have responded to that opinion. No further representations have been received from the Commission.

  New Public Bodies
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the new public bodies established by his Department since May 1997. [112658]

  Mr. Morley
  The following public bodies have been established by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food since May 1997:

  Bodies listed in the Cabinet Office publication 'Public Bodies 1999'.
  British Potato Council
  Expert Group on Vitamins and Minerals.
  Bodies recently classified as Non-Departmental Public Bodies and yet to be published in the Cabinet Office publication.
  Advisory Committee on Animal Feedingstuffs
  Beef Assurance Scheme Panel.

  Salmon Fishing
  Mr. Denis Murphy
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what will be the(a) starting date, (b) finishing date and (c) the duration of this year's drift net salmon fishing season for the sea area from the River Tyne to the River Tweed. [113177]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 6 March 2000]Under current byelaws the drift net salmon fishing season in the sea area from the River Tyne to the River Tweed will for this year,(a) start on 1 June; (b) finish on 31 August and (c) be for a period of 92 days.

  Tree Felling Licences
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many tree felling licences have been granted by the Forestry Commission to the RSPB in each of the last five years; and how many trees have been felled as a result. [113115]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 6 March 2000]The number of licences issued to the RSPB in each of the last five years and the number of trees licensed for felling are given in the table. The Forestry Commission does not keep records of the number of trees actually felled after licences have been issued.
  582W

  Year ending 31 March

  Number of licences granted

  Number of trees licensed for felling

  1996

  1

  390

  1997

  0

  0

  1998

  4

  3,860

  1999

  2

  86,015

  2000 (to date)

  1

  210

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  MOX Shipments
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the countries to which plutonium MOX fuel made at Sellafield's MDF Plant has been exported and the dates of export; and in which cases and on what dates the recipient countries have requested the return of a fuel pin or rod on grounds of safety or inadequate quality control. [112351]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I understand from BNFL that MOX fuel was exported from Sellafield to Germany in October 1996. Similar transports to Switzerland were undertaken in November 1995 and August 1997. As regards requests for any fuel to be returned to the UK, the position in respect of Switzerland was set out in my Answer to my hon. Friend of 25 January 2000,Official Report, columns 194–95W. As regards Japan, the shipment departed Europe in July 1999. Earlier this year the Ministry of International Trade and Industry asked that fuel delivered by BNFL to Kansai Electric's Takahama reactor should be returned to the UK. The Japanese and UK Governments are to discuss this further, along with other options for the fuel.

  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what reports he has received regarding the falsification and manipulation of fuel quality control data in respect of BNFL MOX fuel supplied to Switzerland; and if he will make a statement. [106711]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [pursuant to her reply, 14 February 2000, c. 366W]My Answer referred to certain BNFL fuel pellets supplied to Switzerland in February 1997. This was incorrect. The pellets were in fact manufactured at that time and supplied in August 1997. The rest of the Answer remains correct.

  End of Life Vehicles Directive
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) if he will make a statement on the decision by the European Parliament to amend the proposed Directive on End of Life Vehicles to require car manufacturers to pay for the recycling of used cars when they reach the end of their lives; [113541]

  (2) what representations he has made to the European Parliament regarding their decision to amend the proposed Directive on End of Life Vehicles to require car manufacturers to pay for the recycling of used cars. [113542]

  Ms Hewitt
  In its Second Reading on this Directive, the European Parliament has put forward a number of amendments, none of which have the effect described by the hon. Member. The Commission's proposal of
  583W
  December 1997 required manufacturers to pay for the recycling of used cars. Following pressure from the UK and some other member states, the Council Common Position provides member states with greater flexibility, simply requiring them to ensure that producers make at least a significant contribution to the costs of free take-back of end of life vehicles. The European Parliament has not proposed a change to this wording, although it has proposed a change to the dates from which it will apply, and the vehicles to which it will apply. Conciliation between the Council and Parliament now seems likely. On this particular issue, the UK will aim to secure flexibility for member states in deciding how best to organise free take-back and recycling.

  New Cars
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he will publish the findings of the Competition Commission's inquiry into the supply of new cars. [113362]

  Mr. Byers
  I will publish the Competition Commission report on the supply of new cars as quickly as is consistent with my legal obligations.

  Ilisu Dam
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received concerning alternative developments to the Ilisu Dam to provide energy for Turkey; and if he will make a statement. [112829]

  Mr. Caborn
  [holding answer 6 March 2000]My "right" hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have received a great deal of correspondence regarding the Ilisu project, and this correspondence has included many assertions that various alternatives to the project should be considered.

  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Savidge) on 3 March 2000, Official Report, column 423W.

  It is for the project sponsor to consider the comparative risks, costs and benefits of alternatives to a particular project. Turkey needs to expand its generating capacity considerably. We know that they are looking at coal, gas and oil fired stations elsewhere in Turkey and also at nuclear power. It is natural that they should see hydro power—a clean, renewable energy source which does not involve imports—as having a place in meeting this need.

  Social Enterprise Sector
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what action he has initiated since the publication of the Social Exclusion Unit Policy Action Team 3 report on Enterprise and Social Exclusion (A National Strategy for Neighbourhood Renewal) to improve support for, and to promote, the social enterprise sector; and if he will make a statement. [113451]

  Mr. Byers
  Since the publication of the Policy Action Team's report on Enterprise and Social Exclusion, my Department has taken a number of steps to improve the support for start-ups and existing small businesses, including social enterprises.
  584W
  The SBS is currently exploring ways of encouraging Business Links to provide support to social enterprises, for example through:
  The development of a webpage jointly with the British Bankers Association for business advisers and bankers to widen their understanding of social enterprises and their business needs. This will be linked to BBA website and SBS Gateway. It will be available from the autumn and will be updated regularly.
  The SBS will be involved in a study trip to Valencia in Spain in April, led by Social Enterprise London, to look at co-operatives and other forms of social enterprises. The SBS will be disseminating the outcome of this work widely.
  In January this year, I published "The Small Business Service: Summary of Consultation Replies and the Government's Response". One of the overarching aims this set out for the SBS was that it would help promote enterprise across society and particularly in disadvantaged communities.

  Entrepreneurs and social enterprises in deprived areas can find it difficult to obtain finance to get their ideas off the ground. We therefore launched the Phoenix Fund in November last year with a key objective to support the provision of community finance. In this context we are working closely with the UK Social Investment Forum and Community Finance Initiatives to design ways in which we can support lending to entrepreneurs and social enterprises in the deprived areas. We hope to be able to announce the form that support will take later in the spring. We will continue to work with banks to highlight social exclusion as an issue and agree new ways forward.

  We have contracted with the National Federation of Enterprise Agencies to run a pilot Business Volunteer Mentoring Association scheme until March 2001. This aims to recruit 1,000 volunteers from all sections of the business community, and from a diversity of backgrounds, to provide free mentoring advice to pre and early start up businesses, including from deprived communities. If the pilot is successful, it will be incorporated within the services provided by the Small Business Service.

  My Department is also supporting the National Enterprise Campaign, to be launched this spring, which will encourage enterprise and help develop entrepreneurial skills throughout the UK, including the social enterprise sector.

  Finally I am pleased to announce that the Prime Minister has agreed that the Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs will take on additional responsibilities on corporate social responsibility, as recommended by the Policy Action Team. As Minister for Corporate Social Responsibility, he will be seeking to promote the business case for corporate social responsibility and to develop stronger links between different Government Departments' work in this area.

  Renewable Energy
  Mr. Hilary Benn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the contribution of tidal barrages to meeting the Government's 10 per cent. target for renewable energy; and if he will make a statement. [113135]
  585W
  Mrs. Liddell
  Under the Government's policy on renewables the choice of technology to meet future targets will be left largely to the industry. The assessment undertaken for the Government's consultation document on renewables "New and Renewable Energy: Prospects for the 21 Century—Supporting Analysis" did not lead us to expect a significant contribution from tidal barrages in meeting current targets.

  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what action he is taking to encourage the promotion of renewable energy; and if he will make a statement. [113056]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Government published their new policy on renewables in February in their report "New and Renewable Energy, Prospects for the 21 Century: Conclusions in response to the Public Consultation". The Government will promote renewables in a number of ways. For example:we have recently announced our intention to take powers in the Utilities Bill to place an Obligation on licensed suppliers of electricity to provide a specified proportion of electricity from renewable energy sources. This will provide a very substantial boost to the provision of renewable energy.
  we have exempted electricity and heat from renewable sources from the Climate Change Levy, giving industry a financial incentive to use more renewable energy.
  we are developing a regional approach to renewable energy planning and targets to facilitate renewables developments while continuing to protect the countryside.
  we are developing a growing supporting programme of research, development, demonstration and dissemination in renewables which is expected to include a marketing campaign to raise public awareness of renewable energy.

  Austria
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to his answer of 28 February 2000,Official Report, column 50W, on Austria, what is the intended effect of the agreed bilateral measures to which he referred. [113022]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 3 March 2000]The effect of the agreed bilateral measures is that there will be no bilateral ministerial visits to or from Austria. Along with our other EU partners, the UK will not support Austrian candidates for positions at international organisations.

  End-user Certificates (Africa)
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the dates on which end-user certification of exports were granted in 1998 and the scope of the certificates to countries involved in the

  Objective

  Total (£000)

  Administration costs(£000)

  Percentage

  Promote enterprise, innovation and increased productivity

  795,886

  168,642

  21

  Make the most of the UK's science, engineering and technology

  1,332,486

  29,403

  2

  Create strong and competitive markets

  2,231,674

  32,637

  1

  Develop a fair and effective legal and regulatory framework

  366,173

  149,136

  41

  Total

  4,726,219

  379,818

  8

  586W
  conflict in the Democratic Republic of Congo relating to (a) four-wheel drive and armoured vehicles sold to Angola, (b) military cargo vehicles to Uganda and (c)(i) military vehicles, (ii) combat aircraft and (iii) their components sold to Zimbabwe. [112701]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 6 March 2000]As part of the process of assessing all applications for a licence to export arms or other goods on the Military List (Part III of Schedule 1 to the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1994), including the goods referred to, exporters are required to supply information on the intended end-use and appropriate undertakings by the end-user concerned. Moreover, end-use certificates are not "granted" as part of the export licensing process. There is no process of "certification" as such but additional assurances are sought if this is considered necessary.

  All such applications are of course considered against the criteria announced by my "right" hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on 28 July 1997, Official Report, columns 26–29W and, since June 1998, the EU Code of Conduct on Arms Exports.

  Mineworkers Pension Schemes
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many beneficiaries were drawing pensions from the mineworkers pension schemes BC SSS and the MPS in(a) 1994, (b) 1995, (c)1996, (d) 1997, (e) 1998 and (f) 1999. [112986]

  Mrs. Liddell
  These are matters for the Trustees of the coal pension schemes. I have asked them to write to you direct.

  Funding Schemes
  Mr. Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the funding schemes administered by his Department, indicating the total funds of each scheme and the administration costs of each scheme as a percentage of the total funds. [112496]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 2 March 2000]A detailed breakdown of the Department's activities is given in the annual Expenditure Plans Reports Trade and Industry: "The Government's Expenditure Plans (Cm 3905, Cm 3605, Cm 4211), published by the Stationery Office Limited". Information relating administration costs to programme expenditure is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. However, using information drawn from the 1998–99 Shadow Resource Accounts for the Department, the total cost of departmental objectives and the percentage that relates to administration costs are as follows:

  RDX Exports
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what decisions have been taken on the applications that were pending in November 1999 for the export of RDX in its raw form to Oman, Spain, Turkey and the USA. [112938]

  Dr. Howells
  Licences were issued in respect of the applications covering the export of RDX in its raw form to Spain and the United States of America on 9 December 1999 and 23 December 1999 respectively. A decision has not yet been taken on the other applications concerned.

  All applications for licences to export arms and other goods entered in Part III of Schedule 1 to the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1994, commonly known as the Military List, are assessed against the criteria announced by my "right" hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on 28 July 1997, Official Report, columns 26–29W, and, since June 1998 the EU Code of Conduct on Arms Exports.

  Kensington Mortgage Company
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent discussions he has had with the relevant local trading standards offices concerning the activities of the Kensington Mortgage Company. [112783]

  Dr. Howells
  I have had no such discussions.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) if he will order an inquiry into the lending practices of the Kensington Mortgage Company; [112782]

  (2) if he will make it his policy to investigate the activities of non-status lenders in the mortgage lending sector. [112781]

  Dr. Howells
  Most non-status lenders hold consumer credit licences issued by the Director General of Fair Trading. The Director monitors the continuing fitness of licence holders. He also monitors lenders' and brokers' compliance with his guidelines on non-status lending.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent discussions he has had with the Council of Mortgage Lenders concerning the(a) commissions, (b) penalties and (c) other charges made by the Kensington Mortgage Company. [112779]

  Dr. Howells
  None.

  Mortgage Sector
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps he is taking to protect vulnerable consumers from high levels of commission rates charged by non-status lenders in the mortgage sector. [112778]

  Dr. Howells
  The Office of Fair Trading published guidelines for lenders and brokers in the non-status market in 1997 include guidance on lenders commission structure and disclosure of brokerage and other fees payable by the borrower. The Director General of Fair 588W
  Trading has indicated that lenders and brokers who do not comply with the guidelines risk licensing action under the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what protection his Department provides to mortgagees in respect of the penal rates charged to consumers by mortgage lenders who fall behind in their payments. [112777]

  Dr. Howells
  If a mortgage loan is a regulated agreement under the Consumer Credit Act 1974, the lender cannot charge interest on arrears, when the borrower defaults, at a rate which exceeds the contractual rate of interest. The Act also contains provisions, not restricted to regulated agreements, which enable consumers to apply to the courts to have their credit bargains re-opened if they are extortionate. One of the factors the courts can take into account when considering whether a credit bargain is extortionate is prevailing interest rates at the time the agreement was made. Among other remedies, the court is able to alter the terms of the credit agreement or order the creditor to repay sums paid under the agreement to the borrower.

  The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 provide that terms in standard form consumer contracts (other than terms about price or the subject matter of the contract) are not binding if they are unfair, and enable the Director General of Fair Trading and others to bring injunction proceedings before the courts.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what guidance his Department gives to mortgage lenders on appropriate levels of charges to their customers. [112780]

  Dr. Howells
  None. However, the Director General of Fair Trading's guidelines for non-status lenders and brokers require charges on default to be reasonable and do no more than cover the lender's administrative costs. The Director General has also issued guidelines under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 which say that it is unacceptable for lenders to vary interest rates at will unless consumers can end the contract immediately and without penalty.

  Miners (Compensation)
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the total payments made to date to each firm of solicitors in South Wales involved in the compensation claims for(a) chest disease and (b) vibration white finger. [112480]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Payments to firms in South Wales to date are as follows:

  £

  (a) Chest diseases

  Hugh James Ford Simey

  15,393,222

  Randell Saunders Phillips & Lloyd

  45,237

  Thompsons (Cardiff)

  195,834

  Morgan Cole

  10,426

  Gabb & Co.

  1,366

  Osborne Jones & Co

  940

  David W. Harris & Co

  353

  Leo Abse & Cohen

  294

  T. S. Edwards

  1,058

  Thomas & Co

  4,230

  589W

  £

  (b) Vibration white finger

  Hugh James Ford Simey

  2933,988

  Randell Saunders Phillips & Lloyd

  5,409

  Thompsons (Cardiff)

  69,697

  Gabb & Co

  15,843

  Osborne Jones & Co

  705

  Leo Abse & Cohen

  14,532

  T. S. Edwards

  284,310

  Thomas & Co

  457,839

  Robertsons

  2,907

  Edwards Geldard

  1,406

  Fonseca & Partners

  12,338

  Macquillan

  1,472

  Everett & Tomlin

  1,581

  1 This includes some £5 million in respect of trial costs

  2 This includes some £290,000 in respect of trial costs

  Cashpoint Machines
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what powers he has(a) to stop and (b) to regulate the application of charges for the use of ATM cash points in the LINK system. [113181]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 6 March 2000]Under the new Competition Act the Director General of Fair Trading can investigate whether the LINK agreement on surcharges is in any way anti-competitive and he now has powers to impose severe penalties for infringements of the prohibitions of the Act.

  Section 4 of the Prices Act 1974 gives me powers to make an Order requiring that charges are indicated for goods and services. If the banking industry does not reach a satisfactory voluntary agreement on the display of charges I will use my powers to require them to display prices transparently before the transaction takes place.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  London Underground
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he last travelled on official business on the London Underground. [112190]

  Mr. Hill
  My "right" hon. Friend travels by public transport on a regular basis on official visits and on journeys to his office.

  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will call for a report from London Underground on(a) the reasons for the work on the second escalator at St. John's Wood Station taking longer than originally assumed, (b) when Baker Street Station will be re-opened for Jubilee Line passengers and (c) the reasons why at Westminster Station debris obstructs the walkway to the House, certain exits have not opened and the previously opened exit to Victoria Embankment has been boarded shut. [113126]

  Mr. Hill
  [holding answer 6 March 2000]These are operational matters for London Underground who have informed me that:

  (a) The escalator at St. John's Wood is being refurbished and this work was originally due to be completed by May 2000. However, during the process of removing parts of the escalator, a problem
  590W
  with water ingress was discovered. Work on the refurbishment had to be suspended while this was investigated and dealt with, but is now progressing again and the escalator is scheduled to return to service in late June 2000.

  (b) Baker Street Station re-opened for Jubilee Line passengers on 3 March 2000 but closed to Jubilee passengers over the weekend of the 4–5 March due to a failed speed governor (a device which ensures that the escalator travels at a steady speed, controls the braking system and ensures that it comes to a controlled stop in an emergency). It re-opened this morning to the Jubilee Line passengers; and

  (c) Part of the Bridge subway at Westminster Station remains fenced off to allow contractors to complete installation of permanent lighting there; the final subway exit, linking the station to Victoria Embankment, adjacent to Westminster Pier, opened on 6 March 2000, although the staircase at the pier end of the Subway is not due to open until 31 March 2000; those exits previously opened and now shut have been closed to facilitate construction works at street level by the New Parliamentary Building team.

  Council Tenants
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the progress made in giving council tenants a greater role in running their own estates. [112191]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The introduction of best value and tenant participation compacts from 1 April 2000 will ensure that tenants can influence the way their homes are managed. Tenants can choose how and in what they are involved and this will be set out in the compact with their authority. Our new tenant empowerment grant programme, which I will launch on 31 March also helps tenants to get independent advice on options for involvement, including tenant management if they wish.

  Council Housing (Inner London)
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what proposals he has to encourage the building of council-owned homes in inner London. [112192]

  Mr. Mullin
  We are keen to encourage the building of the maximum number of affordable homes in Inner London by whatever means secures the best value for money. However, in most cases housing associations are able to build twice as many units than local authorities would have been able to do for the same amount of grant.

  Regional Development Agencies
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the cost to public funds of regional development agencies. [112193]

  Ms Armstrong
  The eight RDAs in England have a total budget of £900 million for 1999–2000. This comprises grant-in-aid of £737 million and retention of receipts from programmes.

  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what are the names and addresses of the members of the boards of each of the regional development agencies who have rural expertise. [112819]
  591W
  Ms Armstrong
  Members are not appointed to represent a particular sector, but in a personal capacity. Members typically have experiences and skills across a range of sectors and interests. The table shows both the

  Agency

  Members appointed primarily for rural expertise

  Other members with rural expertise

  One North East, Great North House, Sandyford Road, Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 8ND

  Phillip Hughes

  Miles Middleton

  North West Development Agency, King's Court, Scotland Road, Warrington WAI 2FR

  John Dunning

  —

  Yorkshire Forward, Westgate House, 100 Wellington Street, Leeds LSI 4LT

  Pamela Warhurst

  Lord Haskins Michael Johnston

  Advantage West Midlands, 2 Priestley Wharf, Holt Street, Aston Science Park, Birmingham B7 4BZ

  Antony Harris

  —

  East Midlands Development Agency, Apex Court, City Link, Nottingham NG2 4LA

  Bob Middleton

  Jane Bradford Martin Doughty

  East of England Development Agency, Compass House, Chivers Way, Histon, Cambridge CB4 9ZR

  Marie Skinner

  Vincent Watts

  South West of England Development Agency, Sterling House, Dix's Field, Exeter EX1 1QA

  Jonathon Porritt

  Jeremy Pope

  South East of England Development Agency, SEEDA Headquarters, Cross Lanes, Guildford GU1 1YA

  Sarah Ward

  Allan Willett

  EU Structural Funds
  Mr. Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of his Department's contribution to the future programmes of European Union objective 1 regions. [112194]

  Ms Armstrong
  My Department will continue to provide significant financial support to the new objective 1 regions through a wide variety of routes. These include the funds made available to the Regional Development Agencies; regeneration programmes such as the New Deal for Communities, as well as the resources provided to local authorities.

  Integrated Transport Commission
  Dr. Whitehead
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the Commission for Integrated Transport. [112195]

  Mr. Hill
  We are very grateful to the Commission for Integrated Transport for all the valuable work it has been doing, which continues to make a real contribution to the transport debate.

  Regeneration
  Ms Rosie Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps the Government are taking to regenerate disadvantaged communities. [112196]

  Ms Armstrong
  A framework version of our national strategy for the regeneration of deprived communities will be published in the spring, with a final version emerging later in the year. Meantime, new ideas, new approaches and existing best practice are already being identified with our New Deal for Communities and other regeneration partnerships across the country.
  592W
  names of those board members taking the lead on rural issues and the names of other members who also have some expertise in this area. The address of the RDA where board members can be contacted is also given.

  Mr. Derek Twigg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps he is taking to regenerate the economy in the north-west. [112198]

  Ms Armstrong
  This Government are taking many steps to regenerate the economy of the north west, including the establishment of the North West development agency to deliver the regional strategy. This includes the single regeneration budget which in round five alone is worth over £800 million.

  Best Value
  Mr. Neil Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment his Department has made of the steps taken by local authorities to provide best value in their services. [112197]

  Ms Armstrong
  An interim evaluation of the 40 best value pilot authorities, carried out by the Warwick University Business School, was published on 22 November 1999. All the authorities found the best value framework worked, but was more challenging than they had expected. However, after only 12 months work, there were real examples of improved services and cost savings and real engagement with local people.

  Mrs. Fiona Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the Best Value pilot schemes in the east midlands. [112205]

  Ms Armstrong
  An interim evaluation of all the best value pilot authorities, including those in the east midlands, was carried out by Warwick University Business School and published on 22 November 1999. All the authorities found the best value framework worked, but was more challenging than they had expected.
  593W
  However, after only 12 months of work, there were real examples of improved services and cost savings and real engagement with local people.

  Heavy Goods Vehicles
  Mr. Ennis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many foreign HGVs his Department inspected in each of the last three years. [112199]

  Mr. Hill
  Inspections of vehicles are carried out by the Vehicle Inspectorate in accordance with targets set for them by the Secretary of State.

  The Vehicle Inspectorate undertook roadworthiness checks on 3,498 foreign vehicles in 1998–99 and 5,343 checks in 1997–98. Roadworthiness check statistics for 1996–97 are not available.

  In addition the Vehicle Inspectorate completed traffic enforcement checks on 13,037 foreign vehicles in 1998–99 and in the preceding two years 13,288 and 12,821 checks respectively.

  Urban Renewal
  Mr. Geraint Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the Government's actions to promote urban renewal. [112200]

  Ms Armstrong
  The Government are committed to a comprehensive programme of urban renewal. We are currently preparing the first White Paper on urban policy for 20 years, which we aim to publish later this year. This will set out a comprehensive set of policies to achieve an urban renaissance.

  Disabled People (Transport Access)
  Mr. Pollard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps the Government are taking to improve access for disabled people to transport services. [112201]

  Mr. Hill
  The Government are committed to comprehensive civil "right"s for disabled people. Accessible public transport, within the framework of an integrated transport policy, is fundamentally important to delivering that commitment.

  We have already brought forward regulations under the Disability Discrimination Act setting detailed technical access standards for all new trains. This year we will be bringing forward similar regulations applying to buses and coaches and we will be consulting on proposed regulations applying to buses and coaches and we will be consulting on proposed regulations for taxis. These regulations cover facilities for wheelchair users and for people with a wide range of other disabilities.

  Through the Local Transport Plans we are also ensuring that local authorities give due weight to the needs of disabled people across the whole spectrum of their responsibilities, including pedestrian facilities, transport infrastructure and voluntary and community transport services.

  Light Rail Services
  Mr. Ian Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on light rail services. [112202]

  Mr. Hill
  Light rail, and similar rapid transit systems, can have an important role to play in delivering integrated transport in major conurbations. Experience from existing light rail schemes has shown that they can be effective in providing a high quality public transport option in densely used transport corridors and in encouraging motorists to switch from their cars. However, the capital costs of light rail schemes are high compared with bus priority measures and guided bus schemes, which may offer a more cost-effective alternative. Central Government support can be provided to local authorities to fund light rail systems where these bring net benefits which are greater than those offered by the available alternatives; cannot be entirely funded from local sources or by the private sector; provide good value for money and are essential to the achievement of the objectives of the relevant authority's local transport plan.

  Standard Spending Assessment
  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on his Department's review of the local government standard spending assessment system. [112203]

  Ms Armstrong
  Central and local Government officials have been discussing a wide range of options for improving the method of revenue grant distribution. Their joint report of the issues raised in the review will be put to the Central Local Partnership later this month and published on the internet.

  Decisions about the merits of the various options for reform will be made when we have responses to a consultation paper that we expect to publish in the summer.

  Emissions Trading
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the role of emissions trading in limiting global carbon dioxide emissions. [112204]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Kyoto agreement was an historic achievement—setting legally binding emission targets for developed countries for the first time. The agreement also provides for international emissions trading to help countries meet these challenging targets. I believe that this system will help countries meet their commitments cost-effectively, with real environmental benefits. Since June last year, the Government have been working with business to develop a trading scheme in the UK, as part of our strategy for meeting our climate change commitments.

  Rail Safety
  Mr. Salter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on measures taken to improve rail safety following the Paddington rail crash in October 1999. [112206]
  595W
  Mr. Hill
  I refer my hon. Friend to the Deputy Prime Minister's statement in the House on 22 February 2000,Official Report, columns 1373–84.

  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he last had a meeting with Railtrack to discuss safety on the railways. [112211]

  Mr. Hill
  Ministers and officials meet Railtrack regularly to discuss a number of railway issues including railway safety.

  Recycling
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on progress in his policies to encourage recycling. [112207]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Government are committed to increasing recycling substantially from the current low levels. We set ambitious goals in the draft waste strategy, "A Way with Waste", including to recycle 25 per cent. of household waste by 2005. The final version of the strategy, to be published soon, will put in place a range of instruments for delivering these goals.

  In Wales and Scotland recycling policy is a matter for the National Assembly or Scottish Parliament respectively.

  Quango Accountability
  Mr. Quinn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the accountability of quangos based in Yorkshire and Humberside to the people of that region. [112208]

  Ms Armstrong
  The Government regularly review the accountability of Non-Departmental Public Bodies to the Public through the Public Accounts Committee and the National Audit Office.

  Business Rates
  Mr. Ruffley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what recent representations he has received regarding the level of business rates for small businesses. [112209]

  Ms Armstrong
  I have received representations from small businesses welcoming the transitional relief scheme announced on 25 November and calling for a rate relief scheme for small businesses.

  The transitional relief scheme, which favours small businesses, will phase in significant changes in rate bills resulting from the revaluation on 1 April. In addition many small businesses will benefit from the revaluation itself and the reduction in the multiplier to 41.6p for every £1 of rateable value.

  We set out a possible rate relief scheme for small businesses in our White Paper, "Modern Local Government: In Touch with the People" (1998). We have discussed this scheme with representatives of small businesses, and we aim next to hold a public consultation exercise on the details of the scheme.

  Rail Investment
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what recent discussions he has had with representatives of the railway industry about investment in the railway infrastructure and in train services in Worcestershire; and if he will make a statement. [112210]

  Mr. Hill
  A report was commissioned to consider improvements in rail routes radiating from Worcester and the shadow Strategic Rail Authority (sSRA) will be discussing this report with interested stakeholders this month. The sSRA has discussed a number of improvements in the railway infrastructure in Worcestershire with Railtrack and details of these will be included in Railtrack's Network Management Statement which is to be published at the end of the month.

  Train Reliability
  Mr. Gamier
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he last met representatives of the Association of Train Operating Companies to discuss train reliability and punctuality. [112177]

  Mr. Prescott
  I met ATOC in November 1998 and agreed an action plan for short-term improvements in performance across the railway network. At the National Rail Summit in February 1999, I announced a number of longer-term initiatives based on the establishment of the shadow Strategic Rail Authority. I will be discussing progress on the industry 10-point plan, which covered train safety, reliability and punctuality, with ATOC and Railtrack at the next National Rail Summit in May.

  Pymmes Park
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what progress has been made in resolving the outstanding claims for compensation relating to the compulsory purchase of land at Pymmes Park as part of the A406 widening at Edmonton; what parts of the claim by the local authority have been accepted in principle by the Highways Agency; what issues remain outstanding; and if he will make a statement. [111981]

  Mr. Hill
  Compensation negotiations between the District Valuer, acting for the Highways Agency and the London Borough of Enfield are continuing. The Chief Executive of the Highways Agency, Mr. Peter Nutt, will write to my hon. Friend with further details.

  Letter from Mr. Peter Nutt to Mr. Andrew Love, dated 7 March 2000:
  The Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, Keith Hill, has asked me to write in response to your recent written Parliamentary Question about compensation being claimed by the London Borough of Enfield for land acquired under compulsory purchase at Pymmes Parks as part of the widening of the A406 North Circular Road.
  I explained in my letter of 8 December to you, that negotiations between the District Valuer, acting for the Highways Agency, and the London Borough of Enfield were continuing. Exchange land has already been provided to offset the loss of open space at Pymmes Park. The remaining heads of claim include the value of land as well as reasonable compensation for the loss of amenity and other damages to Pymmes Park.

  597W
  The District Valuer wrote to the Council on 3 February, on our instruction, setting out the Agency's position but unfortunately was unable to offer unconditional settlement on any of the nine heads of claim. I appreciate that this does not represent the progress the Council wishes to see, and I too would be pleased to see all these matters brought to speedy, equitable and amicable conclusion. May I suggest that the best way forward is for officials from Highways Agency, supported by the District Valuer, to meet Council officials at Enfield? If you would like to take up this suggestion, your secretary could discuss arrangements by contacting Andrew Gallagher, the Highways Agency's Director for London on 0171–921–4306.

  Lorries
  Mr. Bill O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what appraisals his Department has undertaken of the time that lorries are delayed on congested motorways and trunk roads; if he intends to take action to reduce delays by lorries and other heavy vehicles; and if he will make a statement. [112705]

  Mr. Hill
  In preparation for our report, "Tackling Congestion and Pollution", published in January, we estimated the total amount of extra journey time (total vehicle hours spent travelling less those which would have been incurred at free flow speeds) resulting from congestion on English roads in 1996. By drawing on this analysis it is possible to estimate the proportion of the total amount of time lost by different kinds of vehicle on a range of road types. Although these techniques are not yet sufficiently well developed to allow a separate estimate to be produced for the trunk road network, estimates can be produced for motorways and A roads as a whole. These estimates suggest that, taken together, motorways and A roads outside urban areas accounted for some 12 per cent. of the total amount of time lost by heavy goods vehicles on English roads in 1996. This estimate includes only time lost due to general congestion and does not allow for time lost due to incidents or road works.

  Our integrated transport White Paper set out a package of measures to tackle congestion and pollution, based on concerted action by local authorities, businesses, Government and the general public. We will continue to take this forward, including through the Transport Bill, and our 10-year plan to modernise Britain's transport system (to be published in the summer).

  M25
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what estimates he has made of the cost of resurfacing the M25 in porous asphalt between junctions 8 and 9. [112542]

  Mr. Hill
  [holding answer 2 March 2000]I have asked the Chief Executive of the Highways Agency, Mr. Peter Nutt, to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Mr. Peter Nutt to Mr. Crispin Blunt, dated 7 March 2000]:
  The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions has asked me to reply to your question about the estimated cost of resurfacing the M25 between junctions 8 and 9 in porous asphalt, a distance of approximately 11km.
  When I wrote to you on 28 February in response to your question about resurfacing the M25 between junctions 8 and 10 in porous asphalt our Agents initial estimate was given as £14m. That estimate
  598W
  was based on the assumption that no other work beyond a simple overlay of porous asphalt would be necessary. I regret that this assumption has proved incorrect in the light of further work.
  A more detailed survey and analysis has ow been completed and has identified the need for additional works if an overlay is to be successfully applied. The existing concrete carriageway, consisting of a series of individual concrete slabs, would need additional work to stabilise it so that small movements in the joints between the slabs did not cause the overlay immediately above the joints to crack. Once cracks form in porous asphalt, the road surface disintegrates very quickly. The overlay would also have to be thicker for the same reason. The extra thickness of the overlay would also make it necessary to raise long lengths of safety fencing to maintain its effectiveness. All this would increase the time taken to complete the work and the costs of the associated traffic management.
  Based upon this more detailed work, our estimate for the cost of resurfacing the M25 between junctions 8 and 9 with porous asphalt is around £18 million, with our estimate for applying it between junctions 8 and 10 now being £34 million. I am sorry for supplying information previously which was so misleading.
  Should you require further information, please contact the Highways Agency's Area 3 Team Leader, John Rylett, in our Dorking office on 01306 878251.

  Housing Stock
  Mr. Dobbin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list those local authorities which have given notice that they intend to transfer(a) their entire housing stock and (b) part of their housing stock. [112992]

  Mr. Mullin
  The following local authorities are due to transfer all or part of their stock by the end of this month:

  Burnley BC

  Elmbridge BC

  Huntingdonshire DC

  Manchester CC1

  Tameside MBC

  Test Valley BC

  Weymouth and Portland BC

  Wyre Forest DC

  LB Hackney1

  1Denotes a partial transfer.

  The following local authorities have sought approval to transfer all or part of their stock:

  Barnsley MBC1

  Blackburn with Darwen BC

  Birmingham CC

  Calderdale MBC

  Chester CC

  Chichester DC

  Coventry CC

  East Northamptonshire DC

  East Staffordshire BC

  Fylde BC

  Horsham DC

  LB Lewisham1

  Manchester CC1

  Mendip DC

  LB Richmond

  South Bedfordshire DC

  Staffordshire Moorlands DC

  599W

  Sunderland CC

  Torbay Council

  Walsall MBC

  Waverley BC

  West Lancashire DC

  West Oxfordshire DC

  West Wiltshire DC

  Wycombe DC

  1Denotes a partial transfer.

  Lead Water Pipes
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps he is taking to replace lead water pipes; and if he will make a statement. [112815]

  Mr. Mullin
  The new Drinking Water Directive (98/83/EC) tightens the standard for lead in drinking water from its current 50µg/to 25µ/1 by 25 December 2003 and to 10µg/1 by 25 December 2013. Where action is necessary to meet these standards, water companies will first treat water to reduce its ability to dissolve lead from pipes, or will optimise that treatment where it is already in place. Replacement of company lead pipes will be needed where water treatment fails to achieve the standards—mainly soft-water areas. This will become fully apparent only after optimised treatment has been in place for some months. Pipework within the property boundary will remain the responsibility of the property owner. Local authorities have discretionary powers to pay grants to help homeowners to replace lead piping in their properties.

  Residential Leasehold Property
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans has he to introduce legislation on residential leasehold property; and if he will make a statement. [113428]

  Mr. Mullin
  As was announced in the Gracious Speech on 17 November 1999,Official Report, columns 04–07, we intend to publish a draft Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill for consultation during this session. My hon. Friend the Minister of State for Housing, Planning and Construction announced on 20 December 1999, Official Report, column 345W, the publication of a summary of the main leasehold measures we intend to include in the draft Bill. Copies were placed in the Library. Following consultation on the draft Bill, we intend to bring forward legislation as soon as parliamentary time allows.

  Solar Radiation
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what provision he has made for the monitoring of the effects of increase solar radiation on satellite and mobile communications systems that are required for the safety of airlines and ships at sea; and if he will make a statement. [113109]

  Mr. Mullin
  [holding answer 6 March 2000]The Rutherford Appleton Laboratory is conducting research into the effects of solar radiation on satellite and other 600W
  communications equipment. It also issues warnings when it is predicted that solar flares and other solar events are likely to affect communications equipment.

  Neither the Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA) nor the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) is specifically monitoring the effects of increases in solar radiation on radio communications. However, any incidents which affect the safety of any aircraft in UK airspace or a UK registered aircraft will be reported to the CAA. This would include incidents caused by solar radiation interfering with radio communications.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many special advisers are employed in his Department; and how many were employed on 1 May 1997. [113107]

  Mr. Hill
  [holding answer 6 March 2000]The Department currently employs five special advisers; three are full-time and two part-time. On 1 February 1997 the Department of the Environment employed four special advisers, two full-time and two part-time. The Department of Transport employed one full-time special adviser on this date.

  By 1 May 1997 two special advisers had resigned leaving the Department of the Environment with three special advisers, one full-time and two part-time and none in the Department of Transport.

  Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 1 March 2000,Official Report, column 282W, concerning MTBE, what contribution has been made by oil companies to the Environment Agency's research project on the incidence of MTBE in England and Wales; if he will publish the results when available; and what assessment he has made of the possible carcinogenicity of MTBE. [113543]

  Mr. Mullin
  The current Environment Agency project on MTBE incidence in England and Wales has received valuable financial and other assistance from major oil companies through the Institute of Petroleum. The results of the research, which forms part of a wider investigation into the fate and transport of chemicals in the sub-surface, will be made available by the Environment Agency. US work suggests that the carcinogenicity risk of MTBE is very small at the levels currently found. The toxicity and carcinogenicity of fuel ethers is, however, currently the subject of a major review by the Finnish Environment Agency on behalf of the European Environment Agency. A draft report is expected this spring.

  Wandsworth (Planning)
  Mr. Colman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he will announce the result of the review of the London Borough of Wandsworth's planning application approval for the
  601W
  development of the site of the Old Wandsworth Secondary School, Sutherland Grove, London SW15, for educational and residential purposes. [113450]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The conservation area consent decision will be announced very soon.

  Vehicle Registration
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what claims there have been for compensation from motor dealers as a result of difficulties in issuing registration documents for new motor vehicles at DVLA. [113525]

  Mr. Hill
  There have been no claims for compensation from motor dealers related to the issuing of registration documents for the DVLA.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what difficulties were experienced with DVLA systems in relation to the registration of V registration vehicles; what the(a) cause and (b) effects were of such problems; what measures were taken to rectify them; and at what cost. [113524]

  Mr. Hill
  'V' registration marks were introduced on 1 September 1999 and were superseded by 'W' marks on 1 March 2000.

  Over 50 per cent. of vehicles are now registered through the Automated First Registration and the Licensing facility (AFRL) which allows motor dealers to register and first license vehicles electronically. All other vehicles are registered through the established network of Vehicle Registration Offices (VROs).

  In recent years the DVLA has consistently met or bettered its published target of issuing registration documents to customers within 12 working days. No significant difficulties have been experienced.

  Driver Safety
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what measures he will take to improve the safety of drivers who make journeys by motor vehicles on behalf of their employers. [113528]

  Mr. Hill
  Measures to improve work-related road safety are set out in the Government's road safety strategy—"Tomorrow's roads: safer for everyone", published on 1 March.

  We want to ensure that worker/drivers and vulnerable road users are not exposed to unnecessary risks. An inter-agency task group is therefore being established under an independent chair—Richard Dykes, Group Managing Director of the Post Office. The group will make recommendations for action on strategies for improving the management of work-related road safety.

  Road Safety
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has for prime time advertising on television to support the objective of his road safety strategy. [113521]
  602W
  Mr. Hill
  Well researched advertising on television will play a key role in supporting the objectives of our road safety strategy. The Department is currently considering options for a high profile campaign led by television advertising to be launched soon with the aim of bringing home to all the importance of safer road behaviour and the part that everyone can play in reducing deaths and injuries.

  The Department has a long history of using television advertising as the focus of powerful and effective campaigns, well founded on research into what will work and thoroughly and independently monitored as to effectiveness.

  Television will provide us in the coming year with the opportunity to raise the profile of road safety as an issue and to get across specific messages about child road safety, speed, drink driving, seat belt wearing and the range of other issues outlined in the indicative programme published in the strategy paper, "Tomorrow's roads: safer for everyone".

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what plans he has to set casualty reduction targets for(a) pedestrians, (b) cyclists and (c) motorcyclists; [113519]

  (2) what special measures he proposes to reduce accidents among (a) pedestrians, (b) cyclists and
  (c) motorcyclists. [113520]

  Mr. Hill
  The Government's new Road Safety Strategy, "Tomorrow's roads: safer for everyone", was launched by the Prime Minister on 1 March. It sets a new target to reduce the number of people killed and seriously injured on the roads by 40 per cent. by the year 2010, a separate target of 50 per cent. for children, and a 10 per cent. reduction in the slight casualty rate. No targets have been set for specific groups but paragraph 9.13 commits us to considering with the Road Safety Advisory Board, rate based targets for cyclists and walkers.

  Special measures for these groups are detailed in chapters eight and nine of the strategy, but measures described elsewhere, particularly our driver training, will be to their benefit.

  Copies of "Tomorrow's roads: safer for everyone" are in the Library and the Vote Office.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what the total cost was of the launch event for the Government's road safety strategy; and what was the breakdown of the costs, including the cost of the (i) videos and films, (ii) stage backdrop, (iii) hire of the premises, (iv) expenses provided for the schoolchildren who participated in the event, (v) sound systems, (vi) issue of invitations, (vii) hospitality and (viii) other costs. [113526]

  Mr. Hill
  The total cost of the event to launch the road safety strategy on 1 March is estimated at £16,800 including VAT where applicable (some minor costs are not yet known).

  A breakdown of costs by category is given in the table.
  603W

  Category

  £

  Detail

  Videos and films

  4,300

  We plan to use both videos and films on at least three other occasions

  Stage backdrop

  6,800

  Some of the stage set will be re-used at other events

  Hire of premises

  2,100

  —

  Expenses for school children; issue of invitations; hospitality

  600

  Of the 15 school children, nine came from a local school and were issued by DETR staff; hospitality for about 120 delegates

  Sound system

  1,200

  The sound system was provided by the venue

  Other costs

  1,800

  Photographer delegate expenses items for the children and minor work on site

  Drink-drive Limit
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects the EU Council of Ministers to decide on a proposal to harmonise the drink-drive limit in the EU. [113527]

  Mr. Hill
  The Government expect the European Commission to publish its proposals in respect of blood alcohol limits for drivers shortly, as indicated in its road safety strategy "Tomorrow's Roads—Safer for Everyone", published on 1 March.

  Hull Road Scheme
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions for what reason the case for the road scheme in Hull is included in his Department's appraisal tables in the category of jobs and prosperity rather than that of safety and healthier communities; and if he will make a statement. [113522]

  Mr. Hill
  The main reasons we included the A1033 Hedon Road Improvement in our programme were to relieve congestion and delays on the main access route to the port of Hull and to assist regeneration. Hence the jobs and prosperity classification for the scheme in "A New Deal for Trunk Roads in England. The New Approach to Appraisal" assessment shows that time savings are the scheme's main benefit, but it will also enhance road safety through improving junction layouts and create a safer environment for pedestrian and cyclists, including provision of a dedicated cycleway.

  Rail Summit
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he next intends to hold a rail summit. [113518]

  Mr. Hill
  It is currently planned to hold the next Rail Summit in May this year.

  Coal Fields (Regeneration)
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps are being taken to regenerate former coal field areas. [112179]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  I refer my hon. Friend to my answer of 11 January 2000,Official Report, columns 112–13W.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Lottery
  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will list the(a) amount of money
  604W
  raised from the sale of lottery tickets, and (b) the amount of lottery money spent, in each constituency, ranked in descending order of lottery money spent. [113276]

  Kate Hoey
  [holding answer 6 March 2000]I have placed in the Libraries of the House a table to show the amount of money raised from lottery ticket sales per UK constituency in descending order since the beginning of the lottery (correct to 13 November 1999), and a table to show the award amount to each UK constituency in descending order since the beginning of the lottery (correct to 3 March 2000). This information is taken from the National Lottery Awards database which uses information supplied by the lottery distributing bodies. The tables include lottery awards not attributed to the distributing bodies to a particular constituency. The constituency information relates to the address to which the lottery award was sent.

  Television Licences
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what will be the cost of administering the free television licence scheme in 2000–01; and how the cost is to be funded. [113130]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 6 March 2000]Estimates of the cost of administering free television licences for people aged 75 or over have still to be finalised. The cost will be met from public funds, via a payment from the Department of Social Security to the BBC.

  Mr. Ennis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what estimate he has made of the number of families in Barnsley East and Mexborough who will benefit from the introduction of free TV licences for households with a member aged 75 years or over. [112980]

  Janet Anderson
  This information is not available. 1991 Census information is out of date and no household survey has a sample size sufficient to make reliable estimates of qualifying households at a constituency or local authority level.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what is his estimate of the(a) number and (b) percentage of households in (i) Northern Ireland, (ii) Wales (iii) Scotland and (iv) England that are evading payment of the television licence fee. [113024]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 3 March 2000]The BBC, as Licensing Authority, estimates evasion principally on a UK-wide basis and estimates of evasion by country cannot be produced on the same basis or to the same level of accuracy. All estimates relate to licensable
  605W
  premises rather than households. As at 31 March 1999, the latest date for which figures are available, the estimated evasion figures were:

  (a)

  (b)

  Estimated evasion (number of licensable premises)1

  Estimated evasion (percentage)

  Northern Ireland

  148,000

  24.2

  Wales

  93,000

  7.7

  England

  957,000

  4.9

  1 Estimates calculated by applying the estimated percentage evasion rate to the estimated number of licensable premises

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if a household exempt from having to pay for a television licence from November by virtue of including a pensioner aged 75 years or over will be required to hold a licence document. [113020]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 3 March 2000]Yes. The provision of free television licences for people aged 75 or over will be a concession, not an exemption from the television licensing requirements. This will preserve the traditional structure of the television licensing system which is one of the safeguards of the BBC's independence.

  UK Sport and UK Sports Institute
  Mr. Allan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what representations he has received concerning the future location of the headquarters of UK Sport and the UK Sports Institute. [112762]

  Kate Hoey
  [holding answer 6 March 2000]DCMS has received a number of representations from interested parties, including local Sheffield Members of Parliament, Phoenix Sports Ltd., University of Sheffield, Sheffield Hallam University and the Institute of Directors (South Yorkshire Branch), about the UK Sports Institute headquarters. My "right" hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I discussed the location of the UK Sports Institute's headquarters with my "right" hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn) and other representatives from Sheffield on 23 November.

  My Department has not received any specific representations regarding the relocation of UK Sport.

  British Library
  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what progress has been made on the British Library review. [113638]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  I have today published the report on prior options, the first stage of the Review of the British Library.

  The report examines the role and functions of the British Library, and how these functions contribute to the delivery of wider DCMS and Government objectives. It confirms that at the present time the library's status as a non-departmental public body is the best option for delivering its services and considers how the delivery of its services might be improved in the future.
  606W
  The publication of the prior options report marks the end of the first stage of the Review. The second stage will take forward the recommendations of the prior options stage and consider how the library's services and functions could be provided more efficiently and effectively in the future.

  A copy of the prior options report has been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Millennium Dome
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what is the cash value of each of the six short-listed bids to take over the Millennium Dome site. [111417]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 22 February 2000]The six short-listed bids, announced on 17 January, were selected on their ability to deliver a world class, sustainable future use for the Dome at Greenwich. Detailed financial appraisals of the bids were not required for this stage of the competition. The six bidders are required to submit indicative financial offers, with further details of their proposals, by 31 March 2000.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what sum of additional interest payments and other expenses has been incurred on a result of the late payment of sponsorship money to the Millennium Dome; and what the cost to the Millennium Commission has been. [109969]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 14 February 2000]The New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC) has not to date incurred interest as a result of delays in the payment of sponsorship money. There have therefore been no additional costs to the Millennium Commission.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, pursuant to his answer of 10 February 2000,Official Report, column 237W, on the Millennium Dome, for what reason he did not list the foods sold in relation to standards of food produced in the United Kingdom as opposed to standards required of catering and food outlets. [112314]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 28 February 2000]All catering and food outlets in the Millennium Dome are subject to the same strict controls and checks that apply to all commercial catering and food outlets in the UK. This applies to all aspects of their operation including the food that they serve. In all instances there is a clear chain from food source, via suppliers, to the specific outlet at the Dome. All NMEC's suppliers endeavour to meet all current Health, Hygiene and Safety regulations.

  Broadcasting
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, pursuant to his answer of 16 February 2000,Official Report, column 545W, on broadcasting, if he will make a statement on the views expressed by the European Commission in respect of (a) News 24 and (b) future funding options for the BBC. [111900]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 1 March 2000]The views of the European Commission on BBC News 24 were set out in the Commission's decision on the
  607W
  complaint by BSkyB. The Government welcomed the Commission's decision that licence fee funding dedicated to BBC News 24 is compatible with the Treaty rules. The Government did not, however, agree with the finding that the licence fee funding of BBC News 24 ought to have been notified to the Commission and noted that the finding in relation to notification was not determinative to the decision and was not the subject of argument.

  The Commission has not expressed a view on funding options for the BBC, though it has requested information on the digital licence fee proposed by the independent review panel chaired by Gavyn Davies.

  Sport Employment Statistics
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what is his basis for estimating the number of people who are employed in sport; and if he will make a statement. [112639]

  Kate Hoey
  Research conducted by the Leisure Industries Research Centre at Sheffield/Sheffield Hallam Universities into the economic impact of sport in England and on behalf of Sport England, was published last month. It shows that employment in sport, including the commercial sector and central and local government, was 368,587 in 1998, an increase of over 20,000 on the 1995 figure, although the expanding employment market generally meant that the sports sector proportion of total employment fell from 1.64 per cent. to 1.59 per cent. These, and other figures contained within the report, provide further evidence of sport's existing and growing economic importance.

  Internet
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what steps his Department is taking to use the Internet to promote sporting opportunities. [112954]

  Kate Hoey
  Our new site (www.culture.gov.uk) went live on Monday 28 February. It responds to public demands for a site which both outlines the role of Government within our areas of responsibility and guides browsers in the direction of a wide range of other sites, including Sport England and the United Kingdom Sports Council, to answer their many questions on cultural and sporting issues. The development of this portal site should encourage visitors to become regular users.

  Digital Television
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what estimate he has made of when it will be possible to receive digital terrestrial transmissions in all parts of Pendle; and if he will make a statement. [113029]

  Janet Anderson
  Maps showing the predicted digital terrestrial television (DTT) coverage from each of the 81 UK DTT transmitter sites have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses on CD-ROM. These show that most of Pendle is covered by transmissions from the Pendle Forest DTT transmitter. These transmissions reach between 204,000 and 220,000 people. There are no current plans for additional DTT transmitters but the BBC 608W
  and ITC, who are responsible for the transmission network, are now considering, in consultation with digital broadcasters, manufacturers, consumer groups and Government, how to improve the coverage of digital television across the UK.

  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) if he will list the post code areas of Worcestershire in which digital terrestrial television services are not currently available; [113067]

  (2) what estimate he has made of (a) the percentage of households in Worcestershire that live in an area covered by digital terrestrial television signals and (b) when the signals will be available in all parts of the country. [113066]

  Janet Anderson
  The information is not available in the form requested. However, maps showing the predicted digital terrestrial television (DTT) coverage from each of the 81 individual transmitter sites in the UK have been placed in Libraries of both Houses on CD-ROM. The BBC and ITC, who are responsible for the DTT transmission network, are now considering, in consultation with digital broadcasters, manufacturers, consumer groups and Government, how to improve the coverage of digital television across the UK.

CABINET OFFICE

  Non-departmental Public Bodies
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if she will make a statement on the Executive Non Departmental Public Bodies 1999 report and the Executive Agencies 1999 report. [113591]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  The Government have today published the Executive Non-Departmental Public Bodies 1999 Report, Cm 4657 and the Executive Agencies 1999 Report, CM 4658 which have been laid in both Houses. The Executive Non-Departmental Public Bodies Report brings together performance and trend data on 89 bodies, and the Executive Agencies Report brings together performance and trend data on 104 agencies and two departments operating on agency lines.

  The NDPBs Report shows that overall 69 per cent. of targets were achieved and that the number of measurable targets has increased substantially to 82 per cent., a 17 per cent. increase on last year. The Executive Agencies Report shows that overall 75 per cent. of targets were achieved and that the number of measurable targets has increased to 80 per cent., a 2 per cent. increase on last year.

  Last March, the Government published the "Modernising Government" White Paper which made a commitment to bring the standard of all public services up to the level of the best so that they deliver what users want in an effective and responsible way. The performance of Executive Agencies and Executive NDPBs, as the main delivery arm of Central Government, is central to achieving this goal.

  In raising standards throughout the public sector, the Government aim to build on existing achievements and seek further gains by ensuring the "right" mechanisms are in place to monitor and report the progress of all Agencies and NDPBs.
  609W
  In order to achieve sustained improvement, it is essential that these bodies should have measurable targets which are strategic, achievable, relevant to the business and timed; adopt robust customer satisfaction targets; have no more than eight key performance targets that focus on the main objectives of the business and set out more stretching targets that build on previous achievements.

  We will be working to achieve this sustained improvement over the coming year.

  Press Officers
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how many press officers were employed in her Department at(a) May 1997, (b) January 1998,
  (c) January 1999 and (d) January 2000; and what was the total expenditure on press officers by her Department in each of the years concerned. [112363]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  The total expenditure on press officers in the Cabinet Office Press Office in the financial year 1997–98 was £453,646; 1998–99 was £512,255—the total to date for 1999–2000 (until the end of January) is £590,394

  The number of press officers in post in Cabinet Office Press Office at May 1997 was 12, January 1998 was 11, January 1999 was 14, and January 2000 was 20.

  In addition, a dedicated press office was set up in March 1999, to co-ordinate Government media activity on the Year 2000 Millennium Bug problem. The Unit was set up by the President of the Council. The total expenditure on press officers in the Unit in 1998–99 was nil. The total expenditure on press officers this financial year, for 1999–2000 is £156,961.

  No press officers were employed in the Unit in January 1999. Five press officers were employed in January 2000.

  Recycling
  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what percentage of documentation used by her Department is(a) made from recycled paper and (b) collected for recycling. [111610]

  Mr. Stringer
  Documentation used by my Department is procured using criteria which include environmental considerations, value for money and performance in use in office machinery. The option of using recycled paper is under review. No statistics are available for the proportion of paper that is recycled. Arrangements are in place for the collection and recycling of much of the waste paper produced in the Department. No statistics are available of the proportion that is so treated.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Passes (Former Members)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee how many House of Commons current passes were held by former hon. Members on 31 December 1999. [113081]
  610W
  Mrs. Roe
  As at 31 December 1999, out of a total of 134 photopasses which had been issued to former hon. Members, 101 were current.

  A further five former hon. Members had applied for photopasses, but had not collected them.

  Road Safety Strategy
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee what measures will be taken in pursuance of the Government's road safety strategy to improve the driving of(a) employees of the House who drive vehicles on House of Commons business and (b) hon. Members. [113530]

  Mrs. Roe
  (a) There are very few instances of House employees having to drive vehicles on House of Commons business; in any event, this would be a matter for the Heads of the individual House departments, not for the Committee; (b) this is a matter for individual hon. Members.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Retirement Pension Forecasts
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many people were awarded a penalty payment for the late processing of retirement pension forecasts in each of the last five years for which figures are available; what were the total sums awarded in each year; and if he will make a statement; [112644]

  (2) how many people were waiting for a decision on their retirement pension forecast at the last date for which figures are available; how many had been waiting for (a) in excess of three months, (b) six months and (c) a year; and if he will make a statement; [112645]

  (3) what plans he has to improve the time taken to issue retirement pension forecasts; and if he will make a statement. [112643]

  Mr. Rooker
  This is a matter for Peter Mathison, the Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Bob Russell, dated 6 March 2000:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to respond to your Parliamentary Questions about Retirement Pension forecasts.
  There are no provisions for payment of a penalty payment for the late processing of a retirement pension forecast.
  The Benefits Agency receives approximately 600,000 applications for a pension forecast each year. The current target for issuing the reply to applicant's is 95% within 40 working days of their receipt. Actual achievement has been affected by problems we have experienced with NIRS2, however last month we actually achieved 90.3%.
  There are no plans to change this target.
  The table attached shows the number of outstanding pension forecasts as at 1 March.
  I hope this is helpful.

  611W

  Outstanding pension forecasts as at 1 March 2000

  Forecasts

  Number of forecasts involved

  Reason for delay

  Forecasts waiting to be processed

  49,965

  This amount of available work is the norm for this time of year. 96 per cent, of this work is still within target date

  3 months

  773

  Retirement Pension Forecasting and Advice Unit are waiting for information to be supplied by different areas of Inland Revenue

  6 months

  15

  Retirement Pension Forecasting and Advice Unit are waiting for information to be supplied by different areas of Inland Revenue

  1 year

  0

  —

  Poverty
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many(a) families and (b) ethnic minority families are living on below half-average income. [113467]

  Mr. Bayley
  The information is in the table.

  Number of families and ethnic minority families below half average income 1997–98

  Millions

  BHC

  AHC

  Including the self-employed

  Families

  5.2

  7.1

  Ethnic minority families

  0.5

  0.8

  Excluding the self-employed

  Families

  4.3

  6.1

  Ethnic minority families

  0.4

  0.7

  Notes:

  1. The latest information available is for 1997–98 derived from Households Below Average Income (HBAI) data. The 1979–96/7 HBAI publication presents estimates of the income distribution of individuals by ethnic group. A copy of this is in the Library.

  2. The definition used of a family is a single adult or a couple, together with any dependent children. A family is defined as ethnic minority if the head of the family is non-White.

  3. The HBAI estimates for 1997–98 are taken from the Family Resources Survey and relate to Great Britain. All estimates are subject to sampling error

  4. The figures are presented on household income both Before Housing Costs (BHC) and After Housing Costs (AHC) in line with HBAI conventions. Figures are also provided including and excluding the self-employed reflecting concerns over the accuracy of income information for the self-employed at the bottom of the income distribution.

  Benefit Fraud
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list for the Benefit Agency's study of family credit accuracy (i) the number, (ii) the percentage and (iii) the monetary value, of cases found to be(a) erroneous, (b) actually fraudulent, (c) having a high suspicion of fraud and (d) having a low suspicion of fraud. [113462]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Social Security Select Committee published the results of the Benefits Agency study in February 1999, a copy of which is available in the Library. The figures it contains are not a reliable guide because the study was not based on a statistically valid sample. This was due to the small sample size in a pilot study.
  612W
  Mr. Dobbin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the progress of the Government's zero tolerance approach to benefit fraud by(a) individuals and (b) organised criminal groups. [111570]

  Mr. Rooker
  We set out our strategy for combating fraud and reducing error in "Safeguarding Social Security", published on 23 March 1999. We are putting this strategy into practice with strong and sensible safeguards to ensure the "right" money goes to the "right" people. Among the new initiatives that carry this forward are the following:New more robust powers for fraud inspectors in The Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Bill published on 1 December. These provisions give greater clarity and allow all benefit fraud investigations to proceed on the basis of common powers.
  All payments will move to automated credit transfer (ACT) from 2003 as a modern, more secure and efficient method of paying benefits. This will virtually eliminate "instrument of payment" fraud and enhance security over the life of a claim. This is expected to yield fraud savings in the region of £140 million—£240 million.
  National Fraud Intelligence Unit—announced 24 January 2000—to combine the expertise of our organised fraud investigators with that of other agencies nationwide, including the police and LAs.
  From the spring, we will launch a hard hitting TV campaign, aimed at getting the public onside in the fight against fraud. This will aim to shift public attitudes and promote intolerance of those who defraud the system.
  Strengthened gateway to Income Support—When we came into office, two out of five Income Support claims were paid without enough evidence. We have halved that. We are insisting on claimants producing more evidence before Income Support is paid. This will save over a £1 billion during the course of this Parliament.
  Verification Framework
  Sets rigorous standards for Local Authorities (LAs) in verifying HB/CTB claims, including targeted visiting. Key measure to promote fraud prevention and consistent standards of administration across LAs. £15 million funding distributed between the first wave of 84 LAs implementing in 1998–99.
  Extra funding of £100 million to enable all local authorities to implement the Framework from 1999–2000. The number of LAs starting to implement is constantly increasing and 234 LAs have so far received funding. Strategy in place to encourage remaining LAs to implement the Framework.
  Section 19 of Fraud Act took effect in September 1999. This requires all Housing Benefit claimants to provide detailed personal information that is sufficient for a National Insurance number to be traced and confirmed or issued.
  Royal Mail "do not redirect"
  Powers introduced under Sections 20 and 21 of the Fraud Act 1997 to prevent fraudulent claimants using the Royal Mail's postal redirection arrangements to submit benefit claims from false addresses; also to provide access to Royal Mail redirection

  613W
  database allowing the Department to cross-match against data held by Royal Mail. Available to all LAs from 1 February 1999. Over 250 LAs now signed up.
  Remote Access Terminals
  Remote Access (computer) Terminals (RAT) provide LAs with direct access to some benefit information held by the Benefits Agency. These terminals have contributed towards reducing the time it takes to process claims for Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit.
  To date, 364 LAs have at least one RAT installed. By the end of March 2000 this figure is expected to increase to 393. Additional terminals are being made available to those LAs using them to capacity.

  Benefits Payments (Post Office)
  Mr. Hilary Benn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make it his policy that, after 2003, pensioners will continue to be able to draw their pension in cash from a post office without having to pay a charge for doing so. [113137]

  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the impact of the decision by banks to charge for the use of automated telling machines owned by other banks on the ability of benefit recipients to obtain benefits in cash from post offices. [113516]

  Housing Benefit recipients, tenants of registered social landlords and private landlords, Great Britain—May 1998

  Type

  All recipients

  Paid four weeks in arrears

  Proportion paid four weeks in arrears (Percentage)

  Average weekly amount of HB (£)

  Tenants of registered social landlords

  840,000

  242,000

  29

  54.50

  Tenants of private landlords

  971,000

  352,000

  36

  61.10

  Notes:

  1. Figures are the latest available.

  2. The number of recipients are rounded to the nearest thousand, proportions to the nearest whole per cent, and average amounts of benefit to the nearest ten pence.

  3. Recipients refer to benefit units, which may be a single person or a couple.

  Source:

  Housing Benefit Management Information System, annual 1 per cent. sample inquiries taken on the second Thursday in May 1998.

  Social Security Act 1992
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what reports he has requested under section 139A of the Social Security Act 1992; and if he will make a statement. [112704]

  Angela Eagle
  My "right" hon. Friend the Secretary of State has, to date, asked the Benefit Fraud Inspectorate to inspect and provide 103 reports to him under section 139A of the Social Security Administration Act 1992, on the administration of Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit by local authorities.

  Stakeholder Pension Scheme
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made of the implication of delays in resolving the problems associated with the
  614W
  Mr. Rooker
  Starting in 2003 we will be moving to a more modern, secure and efficient method of paying benefits through automated credit transfer (ACT). Payment by ACT will become the norm for paying benefits.

  We have given an assurance that benefit recipients, whether paid by ACT or otherwise, will continue to have a choice of where they access their cash, with those who wish to collect at post offices still being able to do so. The recent statement about bank charges has no effect on this commitment.

  However, we recognise that people will expect to be able to collect the exact amount of their benefits and without incurring charges. Arrangements will be put in place to ensure this happens.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what was the average weekly level of Housing Benefit paid to(a) tenants of registered social landlords and (b) tenants of private landlords affected by the four weeks in arrears rule in the last 12 months for which figures are available; [112653]

  (2) what proportion of Housing Benefit claimants are (a) tenants of registered social landlords and (b) tenants of private landlords affected by the four weeks in arrears rule. [112621]

  Angela Eagle
  The answer is in the table.

  NIRS2 computer system for the date of implementation of the stakeholder pension scheme. [112949]

  Mr. Rooker
  Detailed proposals are being developed for the implementation of stakeholder pensions and we do not expect the intended implementation date of April 2001 to be affected by the NIRS2 computer system.

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what progress his Department has made towards the procurement of new information and communication technology for the Child Support Agency. [111776]

  Angela Eagle
  The Department is continuing to work closely with Affinity (the Department's private sector partner) to finalise the Information Technology support to be provided for the Child Support Agency, and to develop and agree the contractual arrangements.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Russia
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he discussed plutonium policy during his recent visit to Moscow; and if he will make a statement. [112358]

  Mr. Vaz
  FCO Ministers and officials hold regular discussions with the Russians on proliferation issues. The latest round of talks is taking place at official level on 3 March in Moscow.

  Her Majesty's Government announced in December that it would be undertaking a Cross-cutting Review on Nuclear Safety in the Former Soviet Union. Plutonium disposition is one of the issues under discussion within the review.

  Stability Pact
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations have been made to him by the United States Secretary of State, about the progress made in implementing the Stability Pact for South Eastern Europe. [112483]

  Mr. Vaz
  We have worked closely with the United States Government on the Stability Pact since its launch in June 1999. The Foreign Secretary regularly discusses the full range of issues relating to the Balkans with Mrs. Alb"right".

  Kosovo
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received from the head of UNMIK, about the rate at which contributions are being made to the resources of UNMIK. [112487]

  Mr. Vaz
  The UK, along with its EU and G8 partners, has been discussing regularly with UNMIK the need for timely international support. The UK has already given $2 million this year and is in discussion with UNMIK about the allocation of a further $8 million. The EU has earmarked 45 meuros this year in budgetary support to UNMIK of which a first tranche of 10 meuros is scheduled to be made on 1 March.

  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations have been made to him by Kosovo Police Commissioner Sven Fredriksen about resources needed to train local police in Kosovo. [112484]

  Mr. Vaz
  The UK is in regular contact with the Head of the OSCE Mission in Kosovo, Daan Everts, about all aspects of the OSCE' s efforts in Kosovo, including police training. We are not aware of any representations made by Commissioner Fredriksen to the UK for additional resources needed to train local police in Kosovo.

  We have recently increased our contribution of international police trainers to the OSCE Police School to 40 officers (25 per cent. of the international training staff currently in post).
  616W
  So far 349 recruits have graduated from the Police School. A further 250 recruits started their training on 22 February 2000.

  We have also offered to pay £50,000 towards the cost of providing an independent water supply to the OSCE Police Training School.

  Sanctions Policy
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of to my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South (Mr. Cunningham) of 21 February 2000,Official Report, columns 841–42W, on sanctions policy, if he will list the friends of the Iraqi regime to whom he referred. [112917]

  Mr. Hain
  The reference covers all those who in one way or another lend their weight to the Iraqi government's attempts to have sanctions lifted without fulfilling in their entirety the obligations laid on it by the international community through the relevant Security Council resolutions.

  Punjab
  Mr. McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the Government's study of the potential for establishing consulate facilities within the Punjab. [113002]

  Mr. Hain
  Feasibility studies into the possibility of improving our services to visa applicants in Chandigarh, Ahmedabad, Sylhet and Lahore have been initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz). These studies are being carried out now by our Posts in the region. We expect the exercise to be completed by mid-year and the results assessed before the summer recess.

  The exercise does not include a review of the consular services offered to British Citizens by existing offices in the region.

  Intergovernmental Conference
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the items or subjects proposed by each member Government and institution of the European Union for discussion at the IGC, relating to(a) unanimity qualified majority voting, (b) the scope of co-decision with the European Parliament, (c) the absorption of the European Convention of Human Rights into the European Union and Community Treaties and (d) other proposals. [113016]

  Mr. Vaz
  The European Parliament and Commission gave their formal Opinions earlier this year. Member states have not made formal proposals. Negotiations have been proceeding on the basis of Presidency discussion papers, which the Presidency has promised to make available on the internet. The Government's position on the range of IGC issues is set out in the White Paper which was presented to the House on 15 February.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the date and location of meetings and scheduled meetings of the Intergovernmental Conference for a New European Treaty, the names of Ministers attending each meeting and
  617W
  the topics (a) discussed and (b) to be discussed; and if a report of the IGC' s proceedings will be made prior to the next meeting of the European Council on 23 and 24 March. [113017]

  Mr. Vaz
  There has been one meeting at Ministerial level and two meetings of the Government Representatives' Group. The full provisional timetable for meetings, including topics to be discussed, is available on the internet at www.portugal.ue-2000.pt. A list of member states' personal representatives will be placed in the Library of the House.

  The Presidency is expected to issue a preliminary IGC report to the Lisbon European Council on 23–24 March.

  EU Documents
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which EU documents are expected to be placed before the European Council at its meeting on 23 and 24 March; what parliamentary(a) debate and (b) scrutiny each such document has been or will be given; and what will be the status of such documents following the meeting. [112998]

  Mr. Vaz
  The European Council in Lisbon on 23–24 March is an extraordinary European Council meeting. We do not expect any proposals for Community legislation to be presented to Lisbon.

  We have received a paper for Lisbon on "Employment, economic reforms and social cohesion—towards a Europe based on innovation and knowledge" from the Presidency, which we have already presented to the European Scrutiny Committee for information. We will also be sending the European Scrutiny Committee the Government's position on the Lisbon European Council and a paper by the Commission in advance of the meeting.

  We expect that there will be a parliamentary statement on the outcome of Lisbon after the meeting.

  Iraq
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the decisions under the Iraq oil for food scheme to allocate money from the relevant United Nations escrow account for items other than food and medicine for the Iraqi people; what was the amount in each case; and what position the UK representative at the UN took on each matter. [113064]

  Mr. Hain
  The Office of the Iraq Programme has received over 17,500 applications under the Oil for Food programme. The total value of these contracts, including the cost of shipping comes to about US$ 14.5 billion.

  As my hon. Friend will appreciate, the volume of applications received under the Oil for Food programme make it impractical to provide the information requested in full.

  The United Kingdom has no objection to the vast majority of Oil for Food applications. Over 96 per cent. of all contracts submitted under the Oil for Food programme have been approved by the Office of the Iraq Programme. Of the 17,500 Oil for Food applications received by the Office of the Iraq programme the United Kingdom has, of today's date, only 166 contracts on hold. The majority of holds are placed on contracts while a
  618W
  request is made for additional information so that we can ensure that the terms of the contract are consistent with the relevant Security Council resolutions on Iraq.

  British Citizenship
  Valerie Davey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he will introduce a Bill offering British citizenship to the people of the British Overseas Territories. [113270]

  Mr. Battle
  As soon as practicable, given the need for preparatory work before the introduction of a bill, and the Government's priorities in the Legislative Programme.

  Visas
  Mr. Hilary Benn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the charge in(a) the relevant local currency and (b) pounds sterling equivalent for an application for a visitor's visa in (i) India, (ii) Pakistan and (iii) Bangladesh in each of the last five years for which information is available. [113140]

  Mr. Vaz
  The current charges in pounds sterling for the various categories of non-settlement visas are as follows:

  £

  Single entry

  33

  Multiple entry (6 months)

  45

  Multiple entry (1 year)

  55

  Multiple entry (2 years)

  65

  Multiple entry (5 years)

  80

  Long term non-settlement

  50

  Visa fees are set at a standard sterling rate globally and are converted into local currency according to the commercial rate of exchange. Fees expressed in local currency may therefore, vary from week to week.

  The charges for non-settlement visas have remained unchanged since August 1995, apart from the fee for the 5-year multiple entry visa. This was reduced from £130 to £80 in June 1997.

  Mr. Hilary Benn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what are the current arrangements for assessing sponsors' particulars in respect of applications for visitors' visas from(a) India, (b) Pakistan and (c) Bangladesh; when they were last amended; and for what reason. [113139]

  Mr. Vaz
  The precise documentation required by sponsors of visa applicants varies according to the type of visa applied for and the circumstances of the individual case. Guidance on the type of documentation required is available to applicants and their sponsors in leaflets available from the FCO and from Visa Sections overseas. This information is also available on the FCO website www.fco.gov.uk.

  Mr. Hilary Benn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many applications for visitors' visas were received from
  619W
  (a) India, (b) Pakistan and (c) Bangladesh; and what percentage of these were refused in each of the last five years for which figures are available. [113141]

  1999

  1998

  1997

  1996

  1995

  Received

  Refused %

  Received

  Refused %

  Received

  Refused %

  Received

  Refused %

  Received

  Refused %

  India

  Bombay

  69,455

  7.8

  61,450

  7.4

  54,028

  7.9

  50,980

  7.7

  47,148

  6.7

  Calcutta

  9,545

  1.7

  8,678

  1.0

  9,149

  1.2

  8,259

  1.5

  7,652

  1.8

  Madras

  26,621

  3.5

  23,544

  3.6

  18,720

  3.4

  16,382

  1.7

  15,196

  1.6

  New Delhi

  64,430

  16.4

  57,804

  13.3

  52,078

  12.7

  51,187

  16.6

  45,280

  15.6

  Pakistan

  Islamabad

  40,537

  21.4

  38,250

  14.7

  23,828

  20.3

  31,354

  26.0

  35,597

  25.7

  Karachi

  29,725

  13.1

  27,536

  11.3

  26,243

  7.0

  27,873

  10.5

  28,342

  10.8

  Bangladesh

  Dhaka

  14,983

  22.4

  12,822

  21.7

  13,115

  27.2

  13,808

  26.7

  14,425

  30.1

  Further details of statistics on non-settlement visa applications can be found in the Global Entry Clearance Statistics, copies of which are available in the House of Commons Library for the years 1994–98. Statistics for 1999 are currently being compiled and will be placed in the Library in due course.

  China
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what assessment he made of the human "right"s record of the People's Republic of China before his Department became involved in the exchange arrangements between the Scottish Police College and the State Police of the People's Republic of China; [112800]

  (2) if he will make a statement about the role of his Department in the exchange arrangements between the Scottish Police College and the State Police of the People's Republic of China. [112799]

  Mr. Battle
  The promotion of human "right"s, including the principle of the rule of law, is an integral part of our relationship with China. We have a critical dialogue with the Chinese Government which enables us both to express our concern about their human "right"s record and work with them to improve Chinese practices in specific areas, particularly through training schemes and other cooperative projects.

  The need to ensure that respect for human "right"s is a central feature of police reform in China lay behind our positive response to the Chinese request for training in the UK for some senior police officers. The Scottish Police College training was funded in part by the FCO's ASSIST programme budget, and stresses the values of democratic policing and the application of human "right"s practices in police work.

  Iran
  Mr. Lepper
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations the Government have made to the Government of Iran about the repression, persecution and imprisonment of members of the Baha'i community in Iran. [112964]
  620W
  Mr. Van
  The statistics for non-settlement applications over the last five years in the countries requested are as follows:

  Mr. Hain
  We remain concerned at reports of the death sentences passed on three members of the Baha'i community, Mr. Najafabadi, Mr. Moghaddam and Mr. Khulusi in Mashad on 3 February. The picture has been somewhat confused by the recent statement by Mr. Sabeqi, spokesman for the Iranian Judiciary, that no such sentences had been passed. The Portuguese Presidency, on behalf of EU partners, presented a demarche to the Iranian authorities expressing our concern and seeking clarification as to the current status of these three gentlemen on 17 February. We took similar bilateral action with the Iranian Ambassador on 21 February.

  We regularly raise with the Iranian authorities our serious concern about treatment of the Baha'is. Persecution of individuals on religious grounds is totally unacceptable.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations the Government have made to the Iranian authorities following the death sentences imposed on three Iranian Baha'is on 3 February; what is the policy of the Government towards Iran's treatment of the Baha'i community; if the Government will support the resolution condemning Iran at the UN Commission on Human Rights; and if he will make a statement. [112771]

  Mr. Hain
  We remain concerned at reports of the death sentences passed on Mr. Najafabadi, Mr. Moghaddam and Mr. Khulusi in Mashad on 3 February. The picture has been somewhat confused by the recent statement by Mr. Sabeqi, spokesman for the Iranian Judiciary, that no such sentences had been passed. The Portuguese Presidency, on behalf of EU partners, presented a demarche to the Iranian authorities expressing our concern and seeking clarification as to the current status of these three gentlemen on 17 February. We took similar bilateral action with the Iranian Ambassador on 21 February.

  We regularly raise with the Iranian authorities our serious concern about treatment of the Baha'is. Persecution of individuals on religious grounds is totally unacceptable. The EU Sponsored United Nations General Assembly resolution on Human Rights in Iran adopted on 18 December 1999 reaffirmed international concern about their situation. We and our EU partners will again be tabling the United Nations Commission on Human Rights resolution on Human Rights in Iran for the Commission in Geneva in April.
  621W
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he received reports of the death sentences passed on three Iranian Bahai's; what representations he has made relating to this; and if he will make a statement. [113273]

  Mr. Hain
  We first learnt of death sentences being passed on three members of the Baha'i community, Mr. Najafabadi, Mr. Moghaddam and Mr. Khulusi in Mashad shortly after the sentences were announced on 3 February. The picture has been somewhat confused by the recent statement by Mr. Sadeqi, spokesman for the Iranian Judiciary, that no such sentences had been passed. The Portuguese Presidency, on behalf of EU partners, presented a demarche to the Iranian authorities expressing our concern and seeking clarification as to the current status of these three gentlemen on 17 February. We took similar bilateral action with the Iranian Ambassador on 21 February.

  We regularly raise with the Iranian authorities our serious concern about treatment of the Baha'is. Persecution of individuals on religious grounds is totally unacceptable.

  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make representations to the Government of Iran about the treatment and planned execution of members of the Baha'i community. [112801]

  Mr. Hain
  We remain concerned at reports of the death sentences passed on Mr. Najafabadi, Mr. Moghaddam and Mr. Khulusi in Mashad on 3 February. The picture has been somewhat confused by the recent statement by Mr. Sadeqi, spokesman for the Iranian Judiciary, that no such sentences had been passed. The Portuguese Presidency, on behalf of EU partners, presented a demarche to the Iranian authorities expressing our concern and seeking clarification as to the current status of these three gentlemen on 17 February. This was followed up with a further demarche in Tehran on 19 February. We took similar bilateral action with the Iranian Ambassador on 21 February.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Mozambique
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment her Department has made of difficulties relating to customs controls being encountered by those taking goods into Mozambique by(a) air and (b) road. [113455]

  Clare Short
  There have been some difficulties in clearing relief items through Mozambican customs as officials were initially overwhelmed by the influx of goods. To increase the flow of items through customs, an additional three customs officials were positioned in Maputo airport by the Mozambican authorities. Staff in the British High Commission have also been working tirelessly to assist these efforts.

  Since 1996, DFID and its predecessor the ODA has also been providing substantial support to the Mozambican government for their programme to reform
  622W
  and modernise its Customs Department. We have provided some £10 million in support for this project thus far.

  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development when her Department first asked the Ministry of Defence to provide helicopters to help in the Mozambique crisis. [113457]

  Clare Short
  We first asked the Ministry of Defence what military assets were available in the region on Saturday 26 February. At that point we were informed that no military assets were available within 3,000 miles of Mozambique.

  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development when her Department first sought helicopters to assist in the Mozambique crisis. [113458]

  Clare Short
  We provided the World Food Programme with US$1 million for helicopter operations on Saturday 26 February. This support allowed the South African Defence Force to continue their essential rescue and relief operations. Commercial helicopters were sought simultaneously.

  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if her Department has hired helicopters from Captain McKenzie of Nairobi to help in the Mozambique crisis. [113459]

  Clare Short
  We have received many offers for the hire of helicopters both from the region and also further afield. My officials were grateful for Captain McKenzie's offer of assistance, but following advice from our air operations experts DFID contracted helicopters through alternative regional sources.

  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development when her Department was first informed of an impending flood crisis in Mozambique; and what action she took at that stage. [113456]

  Clare Short
  My Department has permanent staff based in Maputo who have been monitoring the floods since mid January. In collaboration with our field based staff, specialists from my Conflict and Humanitarian Affairs Department began detailed surveillance of the floods on 24 January. We deployed two humanitarian specialists to the region on 11 February. They conducted rapid assessments and liaised with the Mozambican authorities and humanitarian organisations over priority needs. We despatched a consignment of over 400 tents on 12 February from the UK to Maputo for the Red Cross to distribute for emergency shelter to those made homeless. We also supported the early deployment of the United Nations Disaster Assessment and Co-ordination Team. Between 11 and 16 February, my Department channelled some £1.1 million for immediate relief through the United Nations Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs, UNICEF, International Federation of the Red Cross, World Vision, Oxfam and ActionAid.

  Following a sudden deterioration in the situation overnight on 25 February, staff from the field contacted DFID London on Saturday 26 February. We immediately contacted the United Nations at a high level to facilitate a quick response by the UN humanitarian organisations. On the same afternoon, recognising the seriousness of the situation, DFID provided the World Food Programme

  623W
  with US$1 million for helicopter operations. This support allowed the South African Defence Force to continue their essential rescue and relief operations.

  We have also mobilised an additional nine helicopters, including four from the RAF, to assist with the rescue and relief effort. To assist with the effective tasking of all helicopters, we have seconded a logistics expert into the World Food Programme. But helicopters are not the total answer. We also deployed 70 boats and specialist trained crews, together with a number of large capacity self-inflating life rafts.

  We have also arranged through the Ministry of Defence for the Royal Fleet Auxiliary Fort George to be deployed off Mozambique. The ship will arrive at the end of this week and will provide a further five helicopters to assist in the air relief operations. DFID has already contributed over £7.2 million for rescue and immediate relief including the provision of shelter, water, sanitation and health support. This funding has been channelled through the United Nations Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs, UNICEF, World Food Programme, Red Cross, ActionAid, Oxfam, Save the Children Fund and World Vision. These activities are being co-ordinated with the Mozambican authorities. We stand ready to provide further assistance.

  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make it her policy to procure the services of all available lifting helicopters in the armed services for deployment in relief operations in Mozambique; and if she will make a statement. [112745]

  Clare Short
  We will continue to base our decisions during humanitarian emergencies on the needs on the ground; resources available locally and regionally, details of assets available from the Ministry of Defence, their speed of response and operational viability and how they compare to available alternatives. We will always seek to use the UK development assistance budget as effectively as possible in order to maximise the benefit of the budget for people affected by humanitarian emergencies.

  In addition to providing US$1 million to the World Food Programme for the continued operation of the South African Defence Force helicopters on 26 February. A further five helicopters and support crew were sourced from the region on February 29.

  On 1 March we provided resources for the Ministry of Defence to deploy four Royal Air Force Puma helicopters to Mozambique to assist with the rescue and relief efforts. On 2 March we also provided resources to the MOD to deploy the Royal Fleet Auxiliary ship Fort George to the coast of Mozambique so that its five Sea King helicopters can assist with the relief operation.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent assessment her Department has made of the problems of soil erosion and deforestation in the hinterland of the Mozambique river system; and if she will make a statement. [112699]

  Mr. Foulkes
  DFID has programmes that address soil conservation in both countries that form the hinterland of Mozambique's main river systems. In South Africa we support water resource management and forest conservation programmes within the Department of Water Affairs and Forestry. In Zimbabwe, DFID is helping 624W
  communities in the head waters of the Save and Runde rivers to reduce erosion and siltation while working to form user-led catchment councils to manage better the water resources in their areas.

  United States
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what meetings(a) she and (b) other Ministers in her Department held with members and officials of the United States Government during the visit to the United States between 25 and 29 September 1999; what was the date and location of each meeting; and who was present from the United States Government at each meeting. [113091]

  Mr. Foulkes
  The Secretary of State for International Development met with Brady Anderson, Administrator, USAID, on 26 September at the offices of the World bank in Washington while attending the 1999 Annual Meetings of the Board of Governors of the IMF/World bank.

  Albania
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what is the nature of the assistance provided by the European Union in exchange for the collection of weapons in Albania, with reference to the Council Decision of 17 December 1999 (1999/846/CFSP). [112347]

  Mr. Foulkes
  The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) is the lead organisation in the Weapons in Exchange for Development pilot programme in Gramsh, Albania, which has recently been extended to the Elbasan and Peshkpja regions. The Council Decision of 17 December 1999 enabled the European Commission's earlier pledge of 500,000 euros to be applied across the extended pilot programme.

  The UK has contributed bilaterally to this programme since early 1999 by providing two ammunition technical officers to UNDP to oversee the collection process. We are also funding a feasibility study on the long-term safe disposal of ammunition and ordnance in Albania, the recommendations of which will be passed to NATO, OSCE and other donors.

  China
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent representations she has received concerning conditions in state orphanages in China; and if she will make a statement. [112831]

  Mr. Foulkes
  We have received no recent representations concerning conditions in state orphanages in China. Our Department support efforts to reform and improve the conditions for children in care. We are currently supporting a British NGO to work with the Chinese authorities to improve the conditions of children who are institutionalised, many of whom are orphans.

  Romania
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will publish the results of the review, conducted by her Department in 1998–99, of the activities of the European Children's Trust in
  625W
  Romania supported by the Know-how Fund; what action was taken by her Department as a result of that review; and if she will make a statement. [113127]

  Mr. Foulkes
  I assume the review to which the hon. Member refers concerns a report that DFID commissioned by the National Institute of Social Work in 1998. This report evaluated a programme of child welfare activities in Romania that we supported between 1995 and 1998, undertaken by the European Children's Trust. I will place a copy of the report, which was passed to the Romanian authorities, in the Library of the House. No specific action was necessary as a result of the report, but relevant lessons identified by the report's authors have been taken into account in discussions on further assistance in this field, currently under way with the Romanian Government.

HEALTH

  Retinitis Pigmentosa and Usher Syndrome
  Ms Perham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate his Department has made of the number of people in the UK suffering from(a) retinitis pigmentosa and (b) Usher syndrome. [111994]

  Mr. Denham
  The information requested is not collected centrally. However, the British Retinitis Pigmentosa Society estimates that there are 25,000 people with the condition in the United Kingdom; figures for the incidence of Usher syndrome in Britain are incomplete.

  Indemnity Cover (GPs)
  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how he will assess whether a provider of approved indemnity cover for GPs has sufficient reserves to meet its liabilities; [112413]

  (2) what criteria will be used to approve providers of indemnity cover for GPs under the Health Act 1999; and what steps he is taking to ensure that the approval procedure does not discriminate between classes of indemnifier; [112412]

  (3) if the procedure for approving provision of indemnity cover for GPs will ensure that indemnifiers comply with requirements on insolvency margins equivalent to those made under the Insurance Companies Act 1982; and if he will make a statement. [112414]

  Mr. Denham
  Section 9 of the Health Act 1999 gives the Secretary of State power to require Part II practitioners to hold approved indemnity cover with an approved body. The Secretary of State has power in Regulations to prescribe the circumstances in which such cover shall be required, and the terms for the cover.

  This enables the Secretary of State to ensure that cover will be approved only if it is adequate to meet the anticipated level of claims. This will apply both to cover provided by the medical protection organisations and commercial insurers. It is intended that the regulations will ensure through the approval mechanism that cover will still meet claims that arise from events when the clinician was covered but only come to light later, even if
  626W
  this is after the period of cover has ceased. Other criteria are currently the subject of consultation with interested organisations.

  The purpose of section 9 is to provide greater protection to patients awarded damages following negligence claims. The approval process will be open and transparent, the intention will be to ensure the highest level of protection reasonably achievable in the current climate.

  NHS Funding
  Mr. St. Aubyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which regional development agencies have to date submitted representations to his Department regarding the level of NHS funding. [112359]

  Mr. Denham
  I am not aware of any representations from regional development agencies to the Department regarding the level of National Health Service funding.

  Health Authority Budgets
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the budget per head of population for each health authority area in England for 1999–2000. [112747]

  Mr. Denham
  The table shows the health authority allocations per weighted head of population for 1999–2000.

  Health authority

  1999–2000 allocation 1 £000

  Allocation per weighted head of population £

  Avon

  582,510

  622

  Barking and Havering

  256,500

  623

  Barnet

  209,057

  644

  Barnsley

  156,588

  612

  Bedfordshire

  312,909

  606

  Berkshire

  431,001

  606

  Bexley and Greenwich

  289,039

  662

  Birmingham

  681,946

  632

  Bradford

  312,844

  621

  Brent and Harrow

  310,879

  649

  Bromley

  183,609

  626

  Buckinghamshire

  368,084

  613

  Bury and Rochdale

  249,286

  622

  Calderdale and Kirklees

  369,064

  631

  Cambridge and Huntingdon

  233,706

  621

  Camden and Islington

  320,971

  651

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  317,079

  643

  County Durham

  411,001

  613

  Coventry

  200,882

  607

  Croydon

  202,682

  621

  Doncaster

  198,465

  629

  Dorset

  446,631

  643

  Dudley

  183,018

  622

  Ealing, Hammersmith and Hounslow

  475,900

  625

  East and North Hertfordshire

  290,037

  624

  East Kent

  395,915

  640

  East Lancashire

  349,892

  624

  East London and The City

  491,634

  603

  East Norfolk

  380,037

  633

  East Riding

  360,233

  626

  East Surrey

  244,052

  641

  East Sussex, B"right"on and Hove

  505,366

  642

  Enfield and Haringey

  323,495

  633

  Gateshead and South Tyneside

  255,537

  625

  Gloucestershire

  334,591

  652

  Herefordshire

  98,713

  628

  Hillingdon

  154,353

  631

  Isle of Wight

  92,390

  674

  Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster

  286,339

  576

  627W

  Health authority

  1999–2000 allocation 1 £000

  Allocation per weighted head of population £

  Kingston and Richmond

  208,380

  644

  Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham

  573,116

  628

  Leeds

  469,356

  632

  Leicestershire

  517,887

  613

  Lincolnshire

  394,990

  632

  Liverpool

  350,296

  644

  Manchester

  349,914

  645

  Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth

  422,995

  643

  Morecambe Bay

  205,730

  656

  Newcastle and North Tyneside

  333,829

  634

  North and East Devon

  300,720

  640

  North and Mid Hampshire

  291,934

  638

  North Cheshire

  201,585

  639

  North Cumbria

  198,917

  630

  North Derbyshire

  228,364

  626

  North Essex

  503,561

  624

  North Nottinghamshire

  236,475

  621

  North Staffordshire

  304,458

  614

  North West Anglia

  250,526

  616

  North West Lancashire

  321,635

  626

  North Yorkshire

  434,879

  626

  Northamptonshire

  326,245

  638

  Northumberland

  196,638

  629

  Nottingham

  391,712

  614

  Oxfordshire

  327,812

  610

  Portsmouth and South East Hampshire

  330,353

  627

  Redbridge and Waltham Forest

  296,944

  658

  Rotherham

  159,696

  626

  Salford and Trafford

  310,166

  644

  Sandwell

  205,838

  622

  Sefton

  192,610

  637

  Sheffield

  367,283

  640

  Shropshire

  247,650

  626

  Solihull

  122,698

  636

  Somerset

  290,097

  634

  South and West Devon

  383,565

  641

  South Cheshire

  405,696

  631

  South Derbyshire

  340,745

  615

  South Essex

  417,802

  607

  South Humber

  199,138

  650

  South Lancashire

  185,797

  643

  South Staffordshire

  322,868

  633

  Southampton and South West Hamptonshire

  327,774

  629

  St. Helens and Knowsley

  237,210

  627

  Stockport

  176,374

  631

  Suffolk

  397,601

  638

  Sunderland

  201,223

  625

  Tees

  370,553

  624

  Wakefield

  211,891

  632

  Walsall

  163,794

  623

  Warwickshire

  293,422

  645

  West Hertfordshire

  317,538

  638

  West Kent

  562,935

  632

  West Pennine

  297,286

  618

  West Surrey

  371,000

  643

  West Sussex

  467,090

  624

  Wigan and Bolton

  373,322

  608

  Wiltshire

  345,684

  639

  Wirral

  226,913

  642

  Wolverhampton

  160,766

  622

  Worcestershire

  303,405

  639

  1 Includes targeted funding for health authorities with HAZs

  London Hospital Trusts
  Mr. McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the actions being taken by the Government with the London health authorities to reduce the deficits of the London hospital health trusts. [112684]
  628W
  Mr. Denham
  The London Regional Office of the National Health Service Executive is working closely with health authorities and HNS trusts managing difficult financial positions. Health authorities and NHS trusts are expected to agree plans to achieve financial balance over the shortest possible period.

  NHS Staff (Worcestershire)
  Mr. Michael J. Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list for each year from 1992 to date the number of(a) nurses, (b) doctors and (c) consultants, employed by NHS trusts in Worcestershire; and if he will make a statement. [112809]

  Mr. Denham
  The table illustrates that the number of nursing, midwifery and health visiting staff, together with hospital medical staff employed in Worcestershire, has increased during the period 1992 to 1998. While the figures are not directly comparable due to hospital reconfigurations throughout the period, the figures for 1997 and 1998 clearly demonstrate the Government's commitment to continue to increase the number of doctors and nurses working in the National Health Service.

  NHS Hospital and Community Health Services: Nursing, midwifery and health visiting staff and hospital medical staff, employed within North Worcestershire HA and Worcester and District HA 1,2 as at 30 September each year

  Nursing, midwifery and health visiting staff3,4

  Hospital medical doctors 5

  Whole time equivalents

  Numbers (headcount)

  Numbers (headcount)

  Of which medical Consultants

  1992

  1,500

  1,820

  120

  —

  1993

  3,420

  4,300

  120

  6—

  1994

  3,340

  4,240

  200

  70

  1995

  2,940

  3,850

  220

  80

  1996

  2,790

  3,610

  490

  160

  1997

  2,760

  3,740

  520

  180

  1998

  2,890

  3,960

  540

  180

  1 Staff from the health authorities and other trusts within both HAs are included in these figures.

  2 In 1993, 1994 and 1995 there was also North Worcestershire HA in the Worcestershire Region.

  3 1992 figures exclude agency staff and include learners.

  4 1993 to 1998 figures exclude agency staff and learners.

  5 Before 1996, some hospital medical staff were employed directly by West Midlands Regional Authority, and so are not included in these figures.

  6 Five or less and greater than zero.

  Notes:

  A new classification of the non-medical workforce was introduced in 1995.

  Information based on this classification is not directly comparable with earlier years.

  Figures are rounded to the nearest 10:—zero.

  Source:

  Department of Health Non-Medical Workforce Census.

  Department of Health Medical and Dental Workforce Census.

  Health Visitors (London)
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the reasons for the disparity in the allocation of whole-time equivalent health visitors employed by Parkside Community Health Trust between the health authority in Brent and Harrow and the Chelsea and Westminster Health Authority. [112811]
  629W
  Mr. Denham
  Decisions about the level of investment in health visiting services are made by health authorities, in discussion with Primary Care Groups and/or Primary Care Trusts and National Health Service trusts, and take account of the identified health needs of the local population. It would, therefore, be misleading to compare the service provided by Parkside Community Health Trust to these two health authorities on the basis of whole time equivalents only. The three Primary Care Groups in Brent are currently developing integrated nursing strategies which will take a broader view of population need and review the current deployment of all nursing and therapy provision, including health visiting.

  Lynton Cottage Hospital
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the suitability of Lynton Cottage Hospital, North Devon, for the provision of the new intermediate care he has announced. [112945]

  Mr. Denham
  It is the responsibility of local health authorities, National Health Service trusts, and Primary Care Groups to devise local plans to meet the intermediate care needs of the people of North Devon is a matter for the North and East Devon Health Authority, North Devon PCG and Northern Devon Healthcare NHS Trust to assess.

  NHS Direct
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many callers to NHS Direct in November 1999, December 1999, January 2000 and February 2000 were advised(a) to visit an accident and emergency unit, (b) to contact a general practitioner and (c) to call on the emergency services. [112734]

  Ms Stuart
  [holding answer 2 March 2000]Between November and January, on average 36 per cent. of callers were directed to self-care. During this period, NHS Direct helped to take pressure from other busy NHS services, and directed people to the most appropriate level of care.

  The table shows the number of callers from NHS Direct who were advised (i) to visit and accident and emergency unit, (ii) to contact a general practitioner, (iii) to call on the emergency services during November, December and January. The information for February is not available.

  CMS member

  Name of company

  Nature of interest

  Professor J. Chipman

  SmithKline Beecham

  Non-personal—research grants

  Professor J. Darbyshire

  SmithKline Beecham

  Non-personal—support for clinical trials

  Professor H. Dargie

  SmithKline Beecham

  Personalconsultancy and non-personal—clinical trial

  Dr. M. Donaghy

  SmithKline Beecham

  Personal—shareholder

  Dr. B. Evans

  SmithKline Beecham

  Personal—fees and shares

  Professor E. Gordon-Smith

  Pasteur-Merieux

  Non-personal—research grants

  Professor M. Langman

  Merck Sharpe and Dohme

  Non-personal—support/research collaborations

  Dr. A. MacGowan

  SmithKline Beecham

  Personal—consultancy and non-personal—fellowship

  Professor B. Park

  SmithKline Beecham

  Non-personal—lectureship

  Professor J. F. Smyth

  SmithKline Beecham

  Personal—occasional meetings and non-personal—clinical trials support

  Professor I. Weller

  SmithKline Beecham

  Non-personal—trials and study

  Professor K. Woodhouse

  SmithKline Beecham

  Non-personal—clinical research trials

  Merck Sharpe and Dohme

  Non-personal—clinical research trials

  630W

  Month

  Total callers

  999 emergency services

  Accident and emergency

  General practitioner

  November

  120,000

  2,200

  8,500

  35,000

  December1

  213,000

  4,600

  13,400

  72,800

  January

  262,000

  4,500

  15,000

  85,000

  1 December data do not include information from South West London or East Midlands

  Health Authorities
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list in rank order the allocations per head of population to each health authority in England in each year for(a) 1996–97, (b) 1997–98, (c) 1998–99 and (d) 1999–2000. [113313]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 6 March 2000]The information requested has been placed in the Library.

  Allocations for 1999–2000 are not comparable with those for 1996–97 to 1998–99 which cover hospital and community health services (HCHS) only. 1999–2000 was the first year of unified allocations which cover HCHS, prescribing and discretionary general medical services.

  1999–2000 allocations include increases for targeted funding for health authorities with health action zones.

  Committee on Safety of Medicines
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the members of the Committee on Safety of Medicines who have, in each year from 1987 to date, declared outside interests in(a) SmithKline Beecham, (b) SmithKline and French laboratories, (c) Merck Sharpe and Dohme, (d) Pasteur Merieux and (e) the Wellcome Foundation. [112835]

  Ms Stuart
  This information is published annually in the "Medicines Act 1968 Advisory Bodies—Annual Reports" copies of which, dating back to 1987, are available in the Library, The reports include lists of interests in the pharmaceutical industry declared by each committee member. The 1999 report, which is due to be published in July this year, will include the entries in the table relating to members of the Committee on Safety of Medicines (CSM) (this information is correct as at 6 March 2000). In addition, Professor J. H. Scarffe is Head of Programmes (Career Development) at the Wellcome Trust.

  Hospital Complaints (London)
  Mr. McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many formal complaints were made by(a) patients and (b) their families against each of the London hospitals for the years (i) 1996, (ii) 1997, (iii) 1998 and (iv) 1999. [112683]

  Ms Stuart
  Figures on National Health Service complaints are not collected in the format requested. Data are collected for written complaints and by financial year. These figures are published annually in a statistical report, "Handling complaints: monitoring the NHS complaints procedures—England" and copies of the reports for 1996–97 and 1997–98 have been placed in the statistical section of the Library.

  Data for these years was collected for NHS trusts and health authorities on the basis of the old NHS Executive Regional Office boundaries for North and South Thames. Figures for 1998–99 will be published later this month and will be based on the NHS Executive London Regional Office boundaries.

  Hospitals
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which community hospitals have closed since May 1996; how many hospital beds have been lost as a result; and if he will make a statement. [111424]

  Mr. Denham
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  Retirement
  Mr. Austin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) health visitors (b) district nurses, and (c) school nurses will become eligible to retire at age 55 years within the next five years; and what proportion of the current workforce in each case this represents. [112453]

  Mr. Denham
  The available information is in the table. Numbers of school nurses are not collected centrally.

  National Health Service Hospital and Community Health Services Staff (HCHS) nursing, midwifery and health visiting staff working in the health visitor and district nurse area of work by specific age in England as at 30 September 1998

  whole-time equivalent

  Age

  50

  51

  52

  53

  54

  Health Visitors

  420

  450

  410

  360

  360

  Percentage of total health visitors

  4.2

  4.4

  4.1

  3.6

  3.6

  District Nurses

  440

  480

  380

  340

  330

  Percentage of total district nurses

  3.9

  4.2

  3.3

  3.0

  2.9

  Notes:

  1. Figures are rounded to the nearest 10

  2. Figures exclude agency staff

  Source:

  Department of Health Non-Medical Workforce Census

  Agency Staff
  Mr. Austin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much the NHS spent on employing agency staff in(a) pathology and (b) technical support in the last financial year. [112448]

  Mr. Denham
  The information requested is not centrally available.

DEFENCE

  Weapons Contracts
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many AN/PRC-138 have to be supplied to his Department within the £5 million contract awarded by his Department to the Harris Corporation. [111011]

  Dr. Moonie
  This is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Defence Procurement Agency. I have asked the Chief Executive to write to the hon. Member.Letter from John F. Howe to Mr. Mike Hancock, dated 7 March 2000:
  I am replying to your question to the Secretary of State for Defence about how many data radios (AN/PRC-138) are due to be supplied to the Department within the £5 million contract awarded to the Harris Corporation. This matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief of Defence Procurement and Chief Executive of the Defence Procurement Agency (DPA).
  The DPA placed a prime contract for the provision of sixty-nine of these radios (including ancillaries, spares, training and three years' support) with SERCO Technology Ltd., Waterlooville, Hampshire on 14 June 1999. The contract provides a secure data messaging capability in support of operations in the Balkans. The first deliveries were made during August 1999 and were completed by the end of November 1999.
  To satisfy the requirements of this contract SERCO Technology Ltd. placed a sub-contract with the Harris Corporation.

  Porton Down
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many animal experiments were carried out at Porton Down in the last year for which figures are available. [111940]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 1 March 2000]This is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Defence Executive Research Agency. I have asked the Chief Executive to write to the hon. Member.Letter from Sir John Chisholm to Mr. Norman Baker, dated 7 March 2000:
  I have been asked to reply to your question about the number of animal experiments carried out at Porton Down in the last year for which figures are available.
  In 1999, the number of procedures undertaken using animals at DERA's Chemical and Biological Defence Sector at Porton Down was 11501 (1 animal = I procedure; but note that individual animals may take part in several procedures). This figure reflects the information provided to the Home Office.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Duke of York's Royal Military School
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list(a) those targets of the Duke of York's Royal Military School for 1998–99 which (i) were and (ii) were not achieved, giving the factors affecting the outcome in each case and (b) action taken by the agency to improve target achievement performance in 1999–2000; and if he will make a statement. [111771]
  634W
  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 6 March 2000]This is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Duke of York's Royal Military School Agency. I have asked the Chief Executive to write to the "right" hon. and learned Member.Letter from J. A. Cummings to Mr. Menzies Campbell, dated 7 March 2000:
  I am replying to your Question to Secretary of State for Defence about (a) those targets of the Duke of York's Royal Military School for 1998–99 which (i) were and (ii) were not achieved, giving the factors affecting the outcome in each case and (b) action taken by the agency to improve target achievement performance in 1999–2000; as this matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief Executive of this Agency. A copy of the 98–99 Corporate and Management Plan which contains these targets is held in the House Library.
  (a) (i) The Key Targets that were achieved in 1998/99 are as follows:
  Key Target 2
  To achieve 5 or more GCSE passes at grades A* to C to 78% of candidates. Achievement was 90.1% exceeding target by 12.1%.
  Key Target 3
  To achieve 88% of A levels passes at grades A to E. Achievement was 95.2% exceeding target by 7.2%.
  Key Target 4
  To achieve 3 or more A level passes at grade A to E for 80% of candidates. Achievement was 81.8% exceeding target by 1.8%.
  Key Target 6
  To achieve 100% GNVQ Advanced BTEC National Diploma passes. Achievement was 100%.
  Key Target 7
  To achieve places in higher education for 70% of sixth form leavers. Achievement was 85% exceeding target by 15%.
  Key Target 8
  To achieve a pupil per capita cost of no more than £13,151. Achievement was £11,020, £2.131 less than target.
  Key Target 9
  To generate income of at least £452,000. Achievement £492,000, £40,000 in excess of the target.
  Key Target 10
  To achieve at least 260 applications for September 1999 intake. Achievement was 294.
  (ii) Key Targets that were not achieved in 1998/99 are as follows:
  Key Target 1
  To Achieve 100% of GCSE passes at A* to G target was 100%. Achievement was 99.86%. This reflected one candidate who did not complete all of the assessment requirements for one subject being upgraded in that subject. 737 other subject entries were graded in the range A* to G with a total of 89.30% being graded in the range A-C.
  Key Target 5
  To achieve 34% of A Level passes at grades A to B. Achievement was 31.9%. The percentage of A and B grades achieved reflected credit on that cohort of students. Unfortunately, the cohort as a whole was less able than in 97–98, nevertheless this was an improvement on 96–97.
  (b) The Agency's Key Targets (KTs) are reviewed annually by the Board of HM Commissioners for the school and the Adjutant General's staff, to ensure targets are taut, realistic and demanding. The annual targets set for the School's academic performance (KTI-6) show an increase each year. As part of the exercise to seek

  635W
  better performance targets are cascaded to Heads of Department allowing them to take more ownership. However, academic performance is dependant on pupil ability. Recognising this we will be considering alternative ways of measuring performance on the basis of the 'value added' by the school to the pupil. In line with the continuing drive for efficiency, the School's per capita rate and the income generation target is kept constantly under review.

  Defence Sales Agency
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list(a) those targets of the Defence Sales Agency for 1998–99 which (i) were and (ii) were not achieved, giving the factors affecting the outcome in each case and (b) action taken by the agency to improve target achievement performance in 1999–2000; and if he will make a statement. [111770]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 6 March 2000]This is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Defence Disposal Sales Agency. I have asked the Chief Executive to write to the "right" hon. and learned Member.

  Letter from Mr. A. J. S. Taylor to Mr. Menzies Campbell, dated 7 March 2000:
  I am replying to your question to the Secretary of State for Defence about the Disposal Sales Agency's (DSA) targets for 1998/99 and 1999/2000 as this matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief Executive of the DSA.
  The key targets for the financial year 1998/99 and the percentage achieved are listed as follows:

  Key Target 1
  To achieve disposal sales income of £30M from Government to Government sales of surplus capital equipment and stores-73% achieved.

  Key Target 2
  To achieve disposal sales income of £30M from commercial sales of MOD's surplus items—93% achieved.

  Key Target 3
  To extend the Agency's disposal services to other public sector organisations and to secure an additional £1M of sales income as a result—Achieved.

  Key Target 4
  To develop, contract for, and introduced new IT systems by 31 March 1999, taking account of the Year 2000 requirements for equipment and software—Achieved.

  Key Target 5
  To put in place the mechanisms fully to test the level of customer satisfaction for the Agency's services, and those services provided by its appointed contractors—Achieved.

  Key Target 6
  To reduce the unit cost of generating £1M of sales to £65,000 from a baseline figure of £90,500 achieved in 1994/95—Achieved.

  %

  Description

  1998–99 target

  1998–99 performance

  Percentage improvement in SPS services identified by customers (baseline 1997)

  20

  20

  Percentage of SPS reports delivered within agreed date

  90

  92.1

  Percentage of Asset Accounting Centre (AAC) core accounts audited

  96

  97.6

  Percentage of AAC major accounts audited

  66

  73.8

  Percentage of Category A and B equipment projects for which cost forecasting advice will be available

  93

  96

  636W
  In an increasingly competitive marketplace, which was subjected to shrinking national defence budgets, only a relatively few nations have a real interest in large second-hand capital equipment and therefore demand was not widespread.
  In 1998/99 the DSA operated in a depressed market particularly for major platform sales—this was not only in economic terms as sales opportunities had also been lost because of political events, changing operational requirements and security considerations outside the Agency's control or sphere of influence. Sales targets have traditionally been the major Key Targets of the Agency over the last 5 years. In that time the Agency has surpassed its targets by a 10% margin (£370M as compared to cumulative 5-year target of £335M). In year variances, however, do occur. Estimating sales receipts, based inevitably on limited and shifting information from the three Services, together with the sometimes incomplete conditional state of the surplus equipment when it is declared for sale and set against unknown market conditions is far from an exact science.
  The Key Targets for 1999/2000 are listed below:

  Key Target 1
  To achieve disposal sales income of £66M from sales of surplus Government owned equipment and stores.

  Key Target 2
  To reduce the unit cost of generating £1M of sales to £62,500 from a baseline of £90,500 achieved in 1994–95.

  Key Target 3
  To undertake customer satisfaction surveys designed to identify key issues and priorities, measure perceptions and expectations, and to communicate results and benefits of actions taken to the Agency's customer base.
  Further information on the DSA can be found in the DSA Annual Report and Accounts 1998/99, a copy of which was laid before the Houses on 22nd July 1999. Targets for performance for 1999/2000 were printed on 26th October 1999 (Official Report, columns 767/768).

  Specialist Procurement Services
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list(a) those targets of the Specialist Procurement Services for 1998–99 which (i) were and (ii) were not achieved, giving the factors affecting the outcome in each case and (b) action taken by the agency to improve target achievement performance in 1999–2000; and if he will make a statement. [111736]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 6 March 2000]This is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Defence Procurement Agency. I have asked the Chief Executive to write to the "right" hon. and learned Member.

  Letter from J. W. Howe to Mr. Menzies Campbell, dated 7 March 2000:
  I am replying to your question to the Secretary of State for Defence about the targets of the Specialist Procurement Services (SPS) for 1998–99. You asked (a) which targets (i) were and (ii) were not achieved, giving the factors affecting the outcome in each case and (b) action taken by the agency to improve target achievement performance in 1999–2000. This matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief of Defence Procurement and Chief Executive of the Defence Procurement Agency.
  (a) (i) The SPS targets for 1998–99, that were met or exceeded are as follows:

  637W
  (a) (ii) There were no SPS Targets that were not met in the year 1998–99.
  As to part (b) of the question, SPS ceased to be an agency in its own "right" on the 31 March 1999 and was absorbed into the new Defence Procurement Agency (DPA) that was formed on 1 April 1999. It has nevertheless been working to targets which require continuous improvement and which it is on course to meet.

  Naval Bases and Supply Agency
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list(a) those targets of the Naval Bases and Supply Agency for 1998–99 which (i) were and (ii) were not achieved, giving the factors affecting the outcome in each case and (b) action taken by the agency to improve target achievement performance in 1999–2000; and if he will make a statement. [111751]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 6 March 2000]This is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Defence Naval Bases and Supply Agency. I have asked the Chief Executive to write to the "right" hon. and learned Member.

  Letter from M. A. Westgate to Mr. Menzies Campbell, dated 7 March 2000:
  Thank you for your Parliamentary Question Reference 1157K addressed to the Secretary of State for Defence, seeking information on the Naval Bases and Supply Agency's (NBSA) Key Targets (KTs). As this falls within my responsibility as Deputy Chief Executive of the NBSA I have been asked to reply.
  The NBSA had eight KTs for 1998/99, five of which were achieved or were on track, and three which were not. Details are below, including the factors affecting performance, and the actions taken to achieve improvement in the future:
  Achieved Targets

  KT1:
  Complete 95% of the Fleet Time Maintenance Loading Programme (FTMLP) to time, budget and standard—achieved 98%

  KT2:
  Complete 95% of the Maintenance Requirement agreed at Assisted Maintenance Period (AMP) start date to time, budget and standard—achieved 96%

  KT3:
  Utilise the Fleet Time Maintenance Loading Programme to establish the baseline for the NBSA Shipwork element of the overall cost per Materially Available Vessel Day (a Ships Support Agency target), and then set targets for reduction—achieved/on track

  KT4:
  Supply 95% of available material to rectify high priority (Al-B1) Operational Defects within Required Delivery Dates—achieved 97.5%

  KT5:
  Establish the Agency Account via the CAPITAL Project, including the provision of an Executive Information System to meet business requirements, by March 2000—on track
  Targets not achieved

  KT6:
  To move towards Year 2000 IS compliance by completing 100% of Y2K compliance plans by 30 June 1998—not achieved
  The ambitious start date of 30 June 1998 was not met. By end September 1999, NBSA had achieved 100% of systems prepared and ready. The Agency survived Y2K without problems.

  KT7:
  Achieve year on year Efficiency improvement of 2.2%—not achieved
  638W
  This target equated to an expected cash saving of £11M at 1998/99 prices. The actual saving achieved was £10M (2%). The main factors for the shortfall were delays in staff savings due to building and IT projects not completing on time, and delays in signing NBSA supplier sub-contracts with industry, which will provide income in future.

  KT8:
  Achieve full accreditation of Investor in People by December 1999—not achieved
  At the end of 1998/99 the Agency was on target to achieve IiP by December 1999. This KT was carried forward to 1999/00. At December 1999 76% of NBSA personnel were working in IiP accredited units, but five units had still not achieved IiP accreditation. The new Departmental target for deferred units is 31 March 2000.
  The NBSA produced an Annual Report and Statement of Accounts for 1998/99 and copies were lodged with the House of Commons Library.
  I trust this fully explains the situation to you.

  Kosovo
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the Temporary Field Accommodation has been fully deployed in Kosovo; and if he will make a statement. [113190]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 6 March 2000]Temporary Field Accommodation has not yet been fully deployed in Kosovo. The main causes of the delay were set out in my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces' answer of 18 January 2000,Official Report, column 397W. Camps are, however, now starting to be occupied. In the meantime, improved tented camps have been made available which provide a good interim enhancement to accommodation standards.

  Alma Dettigen Barracks Site
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what contract or memorandum of agreement his Department has signed with Barratts or another developer in relation to Alma Dettigen Barracks site, Deepcut, Surrey; when this was signed; for what reason no information about this was given to locally elected representatives or the hon. Member; if he will place a copy in the Library; and if he will make a statement. [113515]

  Dr. Moonie
  The contracts for the sale of the former Alma Dettigen Barracks, Deepcut near Camberley, Surrey to Barratt Homes were exchanged on 3 March 2000. Completion is expected on 17 March 2000. The purchaser requested, on commercial grounds, that details of the negotiations and the contractual agreements remain confidential. Accordingly, I am withholding this information under Exemption 7 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Radiation Monitoring
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many personnel were involved in staff safety monitoring at(a) Rosyth and (b) Faslane in each of the last five years. [112845]

  Dr. Moonie
  At HM Naval Base Clyde (Faslane), the Health Physics Group is complemented with 16 staff who have direct responsibility for undertaking safety
  639W
  monitoring. Health Physics Group resources are supplemented by trained monitoring staff on-board submarines. Numbers have remained fairly constant over the last five years.

  All nuclear safety matters relating to Rosyth Royal Dockyard are a matter for Babcock Rosyth Defence Ltd., the owners of the Dockyard. It is a condition of their contract with the MOD that they must comply with all nuclear safety regulations.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what radioactive monitoring processes exist at(a) Rosyth and (b) Faslane for staff at work and for checking staff on completion of their duties; what equipment is used to carry out these checks; if he will list the safety equipment which is more than (i) one year old, (ii) three years old, (iii) five years old and (iv) 10 years old; which organisation is responsible for safety checks for staff and for monitoring equipment used; and what role he has in reviewing and overseeing staff safety at the sites. [112848]

  Dr. Moonie
  All nuclear safety matters relating to Rosyth Royal Dockyard are a matter for Babcock Rosyth Defence Limited, the owners of the Dockyard. It is a condition of their contract with the MOD that they must comply with all nuclear safety regulations.

  All personnel working in designated areas onboard submarines, in the Active Processing Facility and the Nuclear Repair Workshop at HM Naval Base Clyde (Faslane) are monitored for radioactive contamination on completion of their work with Electra ratemeters and BP7 probes. Additionally, those working in the Active Processing Facility and the Nuclear Repair Workshop are monitored using the IPM-7 type radiation detector.

  The Electra ratemeters and BP7 probes are more than one-year-old. The IPM-7 type radiation detectors are more than five-years-old. No radiation monitoring equipment is more than 10-years-old.

  The monitoring of personnel and the calibration of instruments are carried out by Health Physics staff from Faslane's Department of Engineering. The Director of Safety and Quality audits these safety procedures. The Chairman of the Naval Nuclear Propulsion Programme also audits nuclear safety under his programme of site authorisation, which minors nuclear licensing carried out by the Health and Safety Executive's Nuclear Installations Inspectorate (NII). The NII also reviews nuclear-related health and safety under the Ionising Radiations Regulations 1999.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the safety of Mk 10 radiation monitors with BP 3 Geiger Muller glass probes; if he will list the areas where their use is authorised; and if he will state his policy on the replacement of Mk 10 with BP 3 probes, by a more modern replacement system. [112846]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Mk 10 Radiation Monitor and BP10 probe are approved instruments for use by the Royal Navy. The BP10 probe is a military version of the commercially available BP3 probe. I am not aware of any written safety assessment for the Mk 10 Radiation 640W
  Monitor used with the BP10 probe but their use is subject to full calibration procedures in accordance with statutory requirements.

  While the Mk 10 Radiation Monitor and BP10 probe are still approved instruments for use on-board HM submarines, they are not routinely used for contamination monitoring of personnel in HM Naval Bases. The preferred instrument for personal contamination monitoring in Naval Bases Clyde and Devonport is the Electra ratemeter and BP7 probe.

  A specialist section within MOD is actively seeking a suitable replacement for the Mk 10 Radiation Monitor and BP10 probe for use on-board HM submarines.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many IPM-7 radiation detectors are in use in(a) Rosyth and (b) Faslane; what is his policy on the use of IPM-7 radiation detectors for safety checks on staff at Rosyth and Faslane; and if he will make a statement on differences in the safety procedures for monitoring staff between Rosyth and Faslane. [112847]

  Dr. Moonie
  At Faslane the 2 IPM-7 type radiation detectors are used for secondary monitoring for personnel working in the Active Processing Facility and the Nuclear Repair Workshop. For work in reactor compartments on submarines the routine is for personnel to be monitored with the Electra ratemeter and BP7 probe. Should any contamination be found by the Electra ratemeter, personnel are then re-checked with the IPM-7 radiation detectors.

  All nuclear safety matters relating to Rosyth Royal Dockyard are a matter for Babcock Rosyth Defence Limited, the owners of the Dockyard. It is a condition of their contract with the MOD that they must comply with all nuclear safety regulations.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to introduce secondary monitoring of staff at Faslane; what secondary monitoring procedures are in place at(a) Rosyth and (b) Devonport; and if he will make a statement. [112843]

  Mr. Spellar
  At HM Naval Base Clyde (Faslane) staff working in the Active Processing Facility and the Nuclear Repair Workshop are already protected through routine secondary monitoring.

  All nuclear safety matters relating to the Royal Dockyards at Rosyth and Devonport are a responsibility of the owners of the Dockyards: Babcock Rosyth Defence Limited and Devonport Management Limited respectively. It is a condition of their contracts with the MOD that they must comply with all nuclear safety regulations.

  Container Ships
  Mr. Davidson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on his Department's plans to procure four new roll-on roll-off container ships. [110652]

  Dr. Moonie
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave on 29 February 2000,Official Report, columns 207–08W, to my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, West, (Ms Squire).

  Atomic Weapons Establishment
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will reassess the decision to award the management contract for the Atomic Weapons Establishment to the British Nuclear Fuels-led consortium from 1 April. [112356]

  Mr. Spellar
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answers given by the Secretary of State for Defence on 21 February 2000,Official Report, columns 1223–24, to my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Mr. Salter) and the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendle).

  Establishment

  Town

  Personnel complement

  (a) County of Somerset

  Army Careers Information Office

  Taunton

  4

  Defence Evaluation and Research Agency, Royal Ordnance Factory

  Bridgwater

  42

  Royal Naval Air Station, Yeovilton

  Yeovil

  3,829

  Hydrographic Department

  Taunton

  855

  Somerset South Avon Wing Air Training Corps

  Taunton

  3

  Light Infantry Office (Somerset)

  Taunton

  3

  40 Royal Marine Commando and Norton Manor Camp

  Taunton

  610

  Territorial Army Centre

  Taunton

  9

  Territorial Army Centre

  Bridgwater

  8

  Territorial Army Centre

  Yeovil

  1

  Defence Procurement Agency, Westland Helicopter Ltd. Team

  Yeovil

  8

  Defence Procurement Agency, Special Procurement Services Office

  Yeovil

  23

  Civilian Personnel Management

  Taunton

  10

  (b) Yeovil constituency:

  Defence Procurement Agency, Westland Helicoptor Ltd. Team

  Yeovil

  8

  Defence Procurement Agency, Special Procurement Services Office

  Yeovil

  23

  Territorial Army

  Yeovil

  1

  (i) The Civilian Personnel Management Taunton is due to close on 31 March 2000 and the Territorial Army centre Bridgwater is due to close on 30 June 2000.
  (ii) Current plans to change the manning of establishments in Yeovil constituency and the County of Somerset are set out as follows:
  With effect from 2003, 513 military posts, 16 civilian posts and 60 contractors will transfer from RNAS Yeovilton to RAF Wittering and Cottesmore, as a result of the creation of Joint Force 2000;
  With effect from 30 June 2000, 30 civilian staff will transfer from DERA Bridgwater to DERA Porton Down as part of DERA's programme to integrate capabilities.
  With effect from April 2000 there will be a requirement for 16 military personnel at RNAS Yeovilton, due to a switch from Army to Navy maintenance regulations.

  RMPA Programme
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will make a statement on the recovery of liquidated damages for late delivery in the renegotiation of replacement maritime patrol aircraft contracts; [112472]

  (2) what penalty clauses were included in contracts placed as part of the Replacement Maritime Patrol Aircraft programme since 1995; and if he will make a statement; [112471]

  (3) what were the conclusions of the Critical Design Review of the Replacement Maritime Patrol Aircraft programme; what action has been taken as a result of each recommendation; and if he will make a statement; [112470]

  Military Establishments
  Mr. Ashdown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the military establishments within(a) Somerset and (b) Yeovil constituency, showing in each case the personnel complement; if he will set out the plans to change the (i) number and (ii) menning of such establishments; and if he will make a statement. [110793]

  Mr. Speller
  The Ministry of Defence (MOD) establishment within(a) the county of Somerset and (b) Yeovil constituency are as listed. The personnel complement at each establishment is also given.

  (4) if he will list the terms and conditions of the renegotiated contract with British Aerospace for the RMPA programme, indicating which ones, and for what reason, differ from those in the 1996 contract; and if he will make a statement; [112469]

  (5) what technical and programme factors led to the in-service date slippage of the RMPA project to 2005; and if he will make a statement; [112468]

  (6) if he will provide a summary of the costs of the Replacement Maritime Patrol Aircraft Programme including development and production costs, in particular (a) costs arising as a result of delays to the planned in-service date of the RMPA and (b) the reasons for cost variation since the original RMPA contract was placed; and if he will make a statement. [112467]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 2 March 2000]This is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Defence Procurement Agency. I have asked the Chief Executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from J. W. Howe to Mr. Paul Keetch, dated 7 March 2000:
  I am replying to your six questions to the Secretary of State for Defence about the Nimrod MRA4 programme (previously known as the Replacement Maritime Patrol Aircraft). This matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief of Defence Procurement and Chief Executive of the Defence Procurement Agency.
  You asked about the cost of the Nimrod MRA4 programme. Overall project costs are estimated at £2317M (at 1999/00 prices), a reduction of £92M (on the same price base) on the estimated costs at MoD Approval in August 1996, prior to contract placement in December that year. The reduction is due primarily to the renegotiation of the contract in early 1999, which included changes

  643W
  in risk assessment and recovery of Liquidated Damages (LD). The additional run-on costs on the existing Nimrod MR2 (up to its currently planned out of service date) consequent on the slippage in delivery of Nimrod MRA4 are offset by the reduction in the cost of operating Nimrod MRA4 over the same period.
  You asked also about the nature of technical and programme factors which led to the slippage of the ISD to 2005. As the Minister made clear when he announced the slippage BAe Operations Ltd. (now known as BAE SYSTEMS) experienced technical difficulties with the development of new information technology toolsets, particularly in the area of design and concurrent engineering, and difficulty in resourcing this complex aircraft project. Additionally, the acquisition of the necessary software tools took longer than anticipated and the company faced particular difficulties in applying new information to the design of the aircraft.
  In three of your questions you asked about contract terms and conditions and the differences in the renegotiated contract, in particular penalty clauses and the recovery of Liquidated Damages. It is not practical or meaningful to list all the terms and conditions of the renegotiated contract here. But the main features related to programme timescales which resulted in the slippage of the in-service date (ISD) from April 2003 to March 2005, changes to the contract specification to clear up ambiguities, operationally acceptable reductions in specification and benefits in through life support. The MoD also secured a revised Variation of Price (VOP) formula whereby our commitment to pay inflation over nine years of the contract period is greatly reduced. In addition, we secured BAE SYSTEMS' commitment to integrate the Active Search Sonobuoy System during the main aircraft programme and so deliver an active search capability at ISD. Liquidated Damages will also be recovered from BAE SYSTEMS for delayed contract deliverables and a new Liquidated Damages provision was negotiated to protect against further delays.
  Your final question related to the recent Critical Design Review (CDR). The Air Vehicle Critical Design Review for the Nimrod MRA4 was held at the end of September 1999. There were 34 time-bound actions placed at the review which have all now been completed, signifying that a major engineering design milestone for the Nimrod MRA4 Air Vehicle is complete: thus far the aircraft has met the revised programme milestones.

  Defence Exports Services Organisation
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the budget of the Defence Exports Services Organisation for(a) the past two years, (b) the current year and (c) the next two years. [112548]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 2 March 2000]Actual cash expenditure on the DESO budget for the last two years has been:

  £million

  Expenditure

  Receipts

  Net operating costs

  1997–98

  55.810

  41.430

  14.380

  1998–99

  45.290

  29.280

  16.010

  Serial

  Description of key target

  Performance

  KT3

  To exceed 90% of customers' perceived satisfaction of requirements

  Not Achieved. The Agency achieved a score of 87% overall customer satisfaction in an independent survey, missing the testing target by only 3%. There were many positive comments, all indicating a customer perception that DCTA had improved availability, fitness for purpose and communication during the period. Further development of the helpdesk, communication, shorter pipeline times and maintained improvement of product availability were the major lessons learned, from which several business initiatives have been implemented by FY 99/00. A more detailed Customer survey is being conducted in the present year (FY 99/00) to assess the impact of these initiatives.

  644W
  Forecast cash expenditure on the DESO budget this year is:

  £million

  Expenditure

  Receipts

  Net operating costs

  1999–2000

  45.225

  32.807

  12.418

  The DESO budget has not yet been set for later years.

  These net operating costs are more than offset by benefits to the Defence budget, estimated at over £400 million a year, arising from DESO's activities. These benefits include an overall reduction in overhead costs for UK Procurement as a result of export orders, and receipts from Commercial Exploitation Levy and disposal of surplus MOD equipment.

  Defence Clothing and Textiles Agency
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list(a) those targets of the Defence Clothing and Textiles Agency for 1998–99 which (i) were and (ii) were not achieved, giving the factors affecting the outcome in each case and (b) action taken by the agency to improve target achievement performance in 1999–2000; and if he will make a statement. [111731]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 6 March 2000]This is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Defence Clothing and Textiles Agency. I have asked the Chief Executive to write to the "right" hon. and learned Member.

  Letter from M. J. Roycroft to Mr. Menzies Campbell, dated 7 March 2000:
  You asked the Secretary of State for Defence to list the targets for the Defence Clothing and Textiles Agency (DCTA) for 1998–99 which were and were not achieved, together with the factors affecting the outcome and the action taken by the Agency to improve target achievement performance in 1999–2000. As Chief Executive of DCTA, I have been asked by the Secretary of State to furnish a reply.
  The 1998/99 Key Targets were announced in the House of Commons on 8 April 1998. A summary of the Agency's achievement against these appears in the DCTA Annual Report and Accounts 1998/99 that was published in July 1999. Copies are available in the House of Commons Library.
  All Key Targets were met, apart from Key Target 3 which was "to exceed 90% of customers' perceived satisfaction of requirements." In a Customer Survey in December 1998 by the Defence Analytical Services Agency (DASA) on DCTA's behalf, the Agency scored 87%—missing the target by 3%. Notwithstanding that the target was missed and that we continued to try to improve, 87% is an extremely high achievement by industry standards. Further details are in Annex A.
  Measures taken during 1999–2000 to attempt to improve performance against Key Targets include the further development of DCTA's helpdesk, shorter pipeline times, enhanced availability, and continued improved communications with our customers, to ensure we are providing the quality and quantity of items which they require.
  I trust this response will answer your questions satisfactorily.

  Defence Dental Agency
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list(a) those targets of the Defence Dental Agency for 1998–99 which (i) were and (ii) were not achieved, giving the factors affecting the outcome in each case and (b) action taken by the agency to improve target achievement performance in 1999–2000; and if he will make a statement. [111733]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 6 March 2000]This is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Defence Dental Agency. I have asked the Chief Executive to write to the "right" hon. and learned Member.

  Letter from I. G. McIntyre to Mr. Menzies Campbell, dated 7 March 2000:
  I am replying to your Question to the Secretary of State for Defence concerning the 1998–99 achievement against targets as this matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief Executive for the Defence Dental Agency.
  The Key Targets published for 1998–99 are listed below.

  Key Target 1:
  From within available personnel resources, achieve 100% of required professional and military trained personnel, at the specified readiness for deployment in support of the National Contingency Force.

  Key Target 2:
  To achieve an overall increase in dental fitness to 75% for Service personnel.

  Key Target 3:
  Measures are to be implemented to target dental treatment towards clinical priority groups leading to a zero increase in the Treatment Needs performance indicator.

  Key Target 4:
  To reduce the percentage of failed appointments with Dental Officers and the time wasted by such failures by 10%. To reduce the percentage of failed appointments with Dental Hygienists and the time wasted by such failures by 25%.

  Key Target 5:
  To limit the number of personnel in dental fitness category D4 (not inspected for 12 months or more) to 15% of the total service population.

  Key Target 6:
  To achieve a success rate for Dental Support Specialists training of 95% of the requirement which is determined by single Service manning supply.
  Of these targets 4 were achieved but Key Targets 2 and 4 were not met.
  For Key Target 2 the overall level of dental fitness achieved at the end of the reporting year was 72%. When the target was set, as had been previously recognised for 1997/99, we were not resourced to meet this target for the Army. It was therefore set as a purely "aspirational target". In 1999–2000 the aim is to maintain an agreed level of fitness as may be decided by mutual agreement with each of the Agency's three single Service customers.
  For Key Target 4 it was recognised that this parameter was not wholly or even primarily within the control of the Defence Dental Agency and this target does not therefore feature in the 1999–2000 targets set for the Agency.

  Logistics Information Services Agency
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list(a) those targets of the Logistics Information Services agency for 1998–99 which (i) were and (ii) were not achieved, giving the factors affecting
  646W
  the outcome in each case and (b) action taken by the agency to improve target achievement performance in 1999–2000; and if he will make a statement. [111768]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 7 March 2000]: This is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Defence Logistic Information Systems Agency. I have asked the Chief Executive to write to the "right" hon. and learned Member.

  Letter from P. A. Flanagan to Mr. Menzies Campbell, dated 7 March 2000]:

  1. I am replying to your Question to the Secretary of State for Defence about Key Targets in 1998/99 and 1999/00 as this matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief Executive of the Logistic Information Systems Agency (LISA).

  2. Much of the information requested is contained in the Annual Report and Accounts 1998/99 (HC688), a copy of which is in the Library of the House. However, for clarity, it is repeated below.

  3. Your first question asked about those targets for 1998–99 which were, and were not, achieved, giving the factors affecting the outcome in each case. The details for this are as follows;

  a. The first Key Target was, "To deliver the agreed levels of service within budget levels defined by the customer". This target was achieved.

  b. The second Key Target was, "To achieve a reduction in unit cost of 3% by April 1999". This target was also achieved.

  c. The third Key Target was in three parts, that is, "To improve delivery performance to customer requirements such that".

  i. "95% of Requests For Change are assessed within 7 days". This target was not achieved. Measures taken to reduce assessment intervals included an increase in the number of Personal Computers with access to RED BOX (the Service Management tool-set) and associated training programme to educate LISA Customer Service Managers in the effective use of the package in the progression of RFCs. These measures, together with the identification and elimination of bottlenecks in the process, secured a very substantial improvement in performance from 67.21% in the previous year achieving 92.6% by the end of March 1999. Actions taken to improve target achievement performance in 1999/00 include exploitation of new features offered by the latest release of RED BOX, and a continuation of the RED BOX training programme. The latter has the objective of improving use and perception of the package and increasing its acceptance throughout the Agency as a significant means of improving performance.

  ii. The average period required for Request for Change authorisation is reduced by 10%. This target was achieved.

  iii. "85% of Requests For Change are moved from the Tasking Phase to the Implementation Phase within 90 days". This target was achieved.

  4. In addition, a new, and significant, means to improve performance is the implementation of Resource Accounting and Budgeting (RAB). As a result of this, Customer-Supplier Agreements are being used to enable the customers themselves to define the outputs required from the Agency. For example, this has enabled LISA to develop one of the targets from one of unit cost to one that now commit the Agency to delivering requirements defined by the customers, but at 97% of the cost of the Agreement to which the customer has agreed and contracted.

  Defence Analytical Services Agency
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list(a) those targets of the Defence Analytical Services Agency for 1998–99 which (i) were and (ii) were not achieved, giving the factors affecting the outcome in each case and (b) action taken by the agency to improve target achievement performance in 1999–2000; and if he will make a statement. [111727]
  647W
  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 6 March 2000]This is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Defence Analytical Services Agency. I have asked the Chief Executive to write to the "right" hon. and learned Member.

  Letter from C. Youngson to Mr. Menzies Campbell, dated 7 March 2000:
  I am replying to your question to the Under Secretary of State for Defence asking for the target performances of the Defence Analytical Services Agency for 1998–99 and improved target achievement performance in 1999–2000. As Chief Executive this falls within my area of responsibility.
  The 1998–1999 Key Targets for the Defence Analytical Services Agency were announced to Parliament by the then Minister for the Armed Forces on 19 May 1998 (Official Report, Column 330). As reported in the Agency's Annual Report and Accounts for 1998–1999, which were laid before Parliament and placed in the House of Commons Library on 26 July 1999 (Ref HC 700), all these Key Targets were met. For your information, I attach copies of the relevant pages of the Report. The Agency's Key Targets for 1999–2000 were also set out in the Annual Report and Accounts for 1998–1999 and announced to Parliament by the then Minister for the Armed Forces on 9 June 1999 (Official Report, Columns 322–333). The Agency's Owner, the Principal Finance Officer for the Ministry of Defence, sets these targets each year with the help of his Advisory Board, made up of all the Agency's major customers and members from outside the Ministry of Defence with a thorough understanding of the Agency's business. The Advisory Board agreed that the targets for 1999–2000 were an extremely challenging measure of business success. The Agency uses the Business Excellence Model to help ensure continuous improvement in all aspects of its business.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Biological and Chemical Weapons
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what measures have been put in place since July 1999 to protect British forces deployed overseas from attack by biological and chemical weapons; [112972]

  (2) what new equipment for detecting, identifying and monitoring biological and chemical hazards has been procured since the publication of his Department's paper, Defending against the Threat from Biological and Chemical Weapons. [112969]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 6 March 2000]The Joint NBC Regiment, created as a result of the Strategic Defence Review, achieved an Interim Operational Capability last December. It provides, at very high readiness, a capability for biological detection, nuclear and chemical survey and decontamination. The Regiment has elements deployed to Kuwait manning the Prototype Biological Detection System protecting the airbase at Ali Al Salem.

  With regard to new equipment, since last summer three Interim Naval Biological Detection Systems have been accepted into service. We have also placed a manufacturing contract for chemical agent monitors which are designed to work inside a collective protection environment. User trials are due to take place this month and this equipment will be brought into service later this year. In addition, a contract has also been let for the manufacture of Man-portable Chemical Agent Detectors. Lastly, I refer the hon. Member to the answer which my "right" hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence gave him on 29 October 1999, Official Report, column 1005W.
  648W
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the military units involved in biological and chemical defence tasks; and what are the operating costs he is meeting in each case in the(a) current and (b) next financial year. [112971]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 6 March 2000]The units dedicated to chemical and biological defence tasks are the Defence NBC Centre (comprising the Defence NBC Headquarters and the NBC School), the Joint NBC Regiment and the Royal Yeomanry.

  The provision made for the operating costs of these units in this financial years is:

  £ million

  Defence NBC Centre

  3.2

  Joint NBC Regiment

  5.0

  Royal Yeomanry

  1.9

  The budgets for financial year 2000–01 have not yet been finalised.

  Foden Thompson Carmichael MWD
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what factors underlay the decision not to authorise road use of the Foden Thompson Carmichael MWD within the UK. [111772]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 6 March 2000]The MK1 version of the Foden Thompson Carmichael MWD was developed in 1995–96 to meet an urgent operational requirement in the Balkans. It is essentially a fuel tanker with a number of design features to improve its manoeuvrability in difficult terrain. The vehicle was exempted from full compliance with the Construction and Use Regulations under Schedule 1, Article 6 of The Motor Vehicles (Authorisation of Special Types) General Order 1979. This Order authorises the Secretary of State for Defence to use specified vehicles, notwithstanding that such vehicles do not comply in all respects with the requirements of the Construction and Use Regulations. The principal areas on non-compliance related to the absence of both a speed limiter and an anti-lock braking system (ABS). While these factors did not make the vehicle unsafe, the vehicles' lack of full compliance with UK legislation led to the decision not to authorise road use within the UK. A modification programme to bring all 34 MK1 vehicles up to full compliance has begun. All MK2 vehicles are fully compliant.

  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the arrangements for driver training for the Foden Thompson Carmichael MWD. [111828]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 6 March 2000]Prior to 1998 the vehicle was deployed in the Balkans without any formal vehicle-specific driver training having taken place in the UK. Nominated drivers were, however, required to hold the necessary civilian licences and a Hazardous Materials qualification before being trained on the vehicle in the Balkans under the guidance of a qualified driving instructor and an experienced driver from an outgoing Unit. Since 1998, pre-deployment training on the MK1 vehicle has been carried out by qualified military driving instructors at the Army School of Petroleum at Westmoor
  649W
  in Dorset. Training on the MK2 is provided through a contract with Multidrive, the manufacturers of the vehicle. Further training and instruction continues to be given in-theatre in the Balkans by operators experienced in the vehicles' use in the local environment.

  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the accidents involving the Foden Thompson Carmichael MWD attributable to(a) mechanical failure, (b) driver error and (c) defective maintenance. [111774]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 6 March 2000]No accidents involving the Foden Thompson Carmichael Multi Wheel Drive vehicle have been attributed to either mechanical failure or defective maintenance. Driver error has been assessed as a contributory factor in eleven accidents.

  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many(a) fatalities and (b) other injuries have occurred in accidents involving the Foden Thompson Carmichael MWD. [111827]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 6 March 2000]There have been three accidents involving the Foden Thompson Carmichael Multi Wheel Drive vehicle that have resulted in fatalities or injuries. The first, on 12 April 1996, resulted in serious injuries to two soldiers. The second, on 7 July 1997, resulted in the deaths of two soldiers. In the third accident, on 22 June 1998, a soldier suffered a slight injury. All three accidents occurred in Bosnia.

  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement regarding the mechanical problems experienced by units using the Foden Thompson Carmichael MWD. [111826]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 6 March 2000]No significant mechanical problems have been experienced.

  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what problems have been identified with the(a) gearbox and (b) braking systems of the Foden Thompson Carmichael MWD. [111775]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 6 March 2000]There is no evidence of any technical or mechanical problems with either the gearbox or the braking systems across the Foden Thompson Carmichael Multi Wheel Drive vehicle fleet. An inquiry following a fatal road traffic accident in 1997 raised a concern that there was a possibility for a clip within the vehicle's gearbox to become dislodged as a result of excessive wear. This might cause the gearbox to slip into neutral despite a gear being selected. A check was made across the fleet but no problems were discovered and no such occurrences have been reported. The accident inquiry concluded that there was no evidence that this was a contributory factor and concluded that there was insufficient evidence to establish conclusively the cause of the accident.

  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the safety record of the Foden Thompson Carmichael MWD. [111825]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 6 March 2000]The vehicle has coped well in operations in arduous terrain and harsh weather conditions over the past three years.650W
  While the two serious accidents are extremely regrettable, the accident rate for this vehicle is not considered excessive. The vehicle continues to perform well and is considered safe in all regards.

  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the theatres where the Foden Thompson Carmichael MWD is deployed for operational use. [111773]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 6 March 2000]The MWD is currently deployed to both Balkan theatres, Bosnia and Kosovo.

  Civilian Personnel (Scotland)
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many of his Department's civilian personnel are employed in Scotland; where they are employed: how many are at each location; and which agencies employ them. [112857]

  Dr. Moonie
  There are 9,098 civilian personnel employed in Scotland. Details of where they are employed, how many are at each location and which agencies employ them are set out in the tables:

  Location

  Personnel compliment

  All Scotland

  9,098

  Aberdeen

  104

  Angus

  120

  Annandale

  11

  Argyll

  5

  Badenoch

  4

  Banff

  71

  Caithness

  5

  Clydebank

  35

  Cunninghame

  594

  Dumbarton

  3,001

  Dundee

  63

  Dunfermline

  703

  East Kilbride

  6

  East Lothian

  158

  Edinburgh

  324

  Ettrick

  1

  Falkirk

  2

  Glasgow

  1,745

  Hamilton

  1

  Inverclyde

  56

  Inverness

  55

  Kirkaldy

  1

  Kyle

  67

  Merrick

  20

  Midlothian

  95

  Monklands

  2

  Moray

  703

  Motherwell

  1

  North East Fife

  323

  Nithsdale

  3

  Orkney

  5

  Perth

  439

  Renfrew

  5

  Ross

  1

  Skye

  15

  Stewartry

  18

  Stirling

  273

  West Lothian

  3

  Western Is,

  14

  Zetland

  47

  651W

  Agency

  Personnel compliment

  Non-Agency personnel (less Royal Fleet Auxiliary

  2,352

  UK Hydrographic Office

  3

  Meteorological Office

  157

  Service Childrens Education

  2

  Queen Victoria School

  68

  Defence Postal and Courier Service

  8

  Army Base Repair Organisation

  110

  Ministry of Defence Police

  870

  Naval Recruiting and Training Agency

  13

  RAF Training Group Defence Agency

  41

  Army Training and Recruiting Agency

  116

  Defence Communications Service Agency

  21

  Defence Estates

  79

  Naval Bases and Supplies Agency

  3,080

  Logistics Support Services

  83

  RAF Signals Engineering Establishment

  77

  Defence Clothing and Textile Agency

  1

  Defence Dental Agency

  11

  Medical Supply Agency

  6

  Army Personnel Centre

  1,130

  Ships Support Agency

  151

  Defence Vetting Agency

  6

  Defence Aviation Repair Agency

  350

  Defence Storage and Distribution Agency

  36

  Defence Housing Executive

  99

  Defence Procurement Agency

  227

  Notes:

  1. The data covers UK based permanent civilian personnel counted in the official Ministry of Defence civil service figures. It excludes UK based casual civilian personnel and permanent civilian personnel whose salaries are paid for, or reimbursed by, other non Ministry of Defence organisations such as NATO and USAF.

  2. The data excludes all Defence Evaluation and Research Agency staff on whom reliable location data is not available.

  3. Numbers will not always add up to the total MOD personnel in Scotland.

  Married Quarters (Scotland)
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many married quarters are available to forces families in Scotland; where they are; and what are their occupancy levels. [112837]

  Dr. Moonie
  800 properties are in the course of disposal leaving a working stock of 5,033 properties, 88.5 per cent. of which are occupied. The main locations are:Rosyth (152), Edinburgh (614), Helensburgh (464), Leuchars (621), Kinloss (810), Lossiemouth (761), Glasgow area (272) and other minor locations (760) giving 4,454 currently in occupation.

  HMS Spartan
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when HMS Spartan's refit will be completed; and when the vessel will be operational. [112838]

  Dr. Moonie
  HMS Spartan is planned to complete her refit in the summer of 2001 and to be operational, following trials, in early 2002.

  Clyde Naval Base
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many of his Department's civilian personnel are employed(a) at HMNB Clyde, (b) at HMNB Clyde exclusively on maintaining and servicing nuclear
  652W
  propelled submarines, (c) at HMNB Clyde exclusively on maintaining conventional surface vessels and (d) on work on both submarines and surface vessels. [112855]

  Mr. Spellar
  As at 29 February 2000, HMNB Clyde employed a total of 3,277 civilian personnel.

  The Department of Engineering within HMNB Clyde has 198 civilian staff who would be considered to be employed solely on maintaining and servicing both submarines and surface vessels. Due to the re-structuring of the Department in recent years and the flexibility of the workforce that now exists, all would be expected to maintain and service both submarines and surface vessels, to some extent, as might be required.

  For the reasons stated above it is not possible to give a definitive answer to the split of tasks between surface vessels and submarines.

  Faslane
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the maximum number of surface vessels that were accommodated at Faslane at any one time in the past five years; what were the types and numbers of vessels accommodated on that occasion; and when that was. [112856]

  Dr. Moonie
  On 6 June 1999, there were 30 surface ships accommodated at HM Naval Base Clyde (Faslane). They were:

  Two in number Invincible class aircraft carriers

  Two in number Destroyers/Frigates

  12 in Minor War vessels

  Six Fast patrol craft

  One Castle class offshore patrol vessel

  Four P2000 class patrol boats

  Three Support vessels.

  Costs
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what are the costs of salaries for all his Department's civilians in Scotland, by agency and in total; [112853]

  (2) what were the total costs of each of the defence installations, including operating costs, maintenance and civilian and services salaries, in the last year for which figures are available. [112934]

  Dr. Moonie
  The information is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Depleted Uranium
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many veterans he expects to be tested for depleted uranium; what will be the cost; and if he will make a statement. [112968]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 6 March 2000]To address Gulf veterans' concerns, on 8 September 1999, the Ministry of Defence offered to arrange independent testing for Depleted Uranium to those Gulf veterans who had their urine tested for Depleted Uranium in Canada. This offer must not be taken as an indication that the Ministry of Defence believes veterans do have high levels of Depleted Uranium in their bodies. Rather it is
  653W
  something the Ministry of Defence would like to do so that we can move forward from a firm scientific basis. A draft protocol under which this testing will take place is with veterans' representatives for comment. If it is agreed, we believe that approximately 30 veterans would be eligible for testing. My Department estimates that the cost of obtaining and testing a sample of veteran's urine will be approximately £3,500 per person, excluding Ministry of Defence overheads.

  RAF Yearbook
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what editorial control the MoD Publications Clearance Branch exercises over the Royal Air Force Yearbook. [112451]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 1 March 2000]The Publications Clearance Branch (Air) does not exercise direct editorial control over the RAF Yearbook. However, contributions to the Yearbook from serving personnel are subject to the normal publications clearance procedure laid down in Queen's Regulations. This requires them to submit potential articles for clearance to the Publications Clearance Branch (Air) in advance of publication.

  The Director of Corporate Communications (RAF) also co-operates very closely with the RAF Benevolent Fund during the production of the Yearbook and will see all the text before publication.

  ASRAAM
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects the integration of ASRAAM missiles into Jaguar GR3A to be completed; and if he will make a statement. [112436]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 1 March 2000]Following an assessment of the cost effectiveness and operational benefits of this project, we have decided not to proceed with integration of the ASRAAM onto Jaguar GR3A.

  Asbestos-related Diseases
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the total number of service personnel diagnosed to be suffering with asbestosis or asbestos-related diseases in each of the last five years for which figures are available; and how many deaths occurred in each service branch from asbestos-related diseases over the same period. [113327]

  Mr. Spellar
  Since 1 January 1995 there have been no serving service personnel who died or have been reported as having been diagnosed with asbestosis or asbestos-related disease in the last five years.

  HMS Cambridge
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will set out his proposals for the future of HMS Cambridge, near Plymouth. [111254]

  Mr. Spellar
  Following the cessation of shore-based live firing training from HMS Cambridge due to increased use of computer simulation, my Department has been undertaking a detailed study into the future of the establishment. I have not yet received advice on 654W
  the findings of the study and have taken no decisions about the future of HMS Cambridge, but hope to be in a position to do so in the next few months. Any decision will be subject to formal consultation in the usual way.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many questions to his Department tabled for written answer on a named day during the session 1998–99 were answered(a) on the named day, (b) within one week of a named day, (c) within one month of a named day, (d) within three months of a named day and (e) after three months of a named day. [106480]

  Dr. Moonie
  During the Session 1998–99, 1,004 questions were tabled to my Department for written answer on a named day. Of this total, 552 were answered on the named day, 834 were answered within one week of a named day, 983 were answered within one month of a named day and 994 were answered within three months of a named day. All 1,004 were answered after three months.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Court Closures and Amalgamations
  Mr. Gamier
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many, and which(a) county courts and (b) magistrates courts in England and Wales have been closed since 1 February 1994, indicating the date of each closure; how many and which justices benches in England and Wales have been amalgamated since 1 February 1994, indicating the date of each amalgamation; what were the financial savings achieved by the above closures and amalgamations, identifying the effect in financial terms for the relevant police force, legal representation costs and witness expenses. [112772]

  Jane Kennedy
  Lists of(a) county court and (b) magistrates court closures, and (c) justices bench amalgamations are as set out.

  (a) The list of county court closures and the following paragraph have been supplied by the Chief Executive of the Court Service. Fifty-five county courts in England and Wales have been closed or amalgamated since 1 February 1994. The financial savings to the Court Service are in terms of rent and accommodation charges, running costs such as staff salaries, telephone, postage, maintenance of buildings and judicial expense. There have been no savings in financial terms in respect of police forces as this is not relevant to the county courts. The Lord Chancellor does not keep statistics on what representation costs or witness expenses may have been saved through county court closures. Precise figures on all the savings accruing from county court closures since 1994 are not specifically kept by the Court Service. However, a broad conservative estimate of accommodation charges saved and general running costs would indicate a minimum saving of £6,000,000 over the six year period.

  (b) Eighty-one magistrates courts have been closed in England and Wales since September 1995.

  Magistrates courthouses are owned or leased by the paying authority on behalf of the magistrates courts service. They are not Crown property. The Lord Chancellor's

  655W
  Department has conducted an annual survey of magistrates courthouses since 1995, but holds no records prior to that date.

  (c) Since 1 February 1994, in England and Wales, 181 justices benches (or petty sessions areas) have been amalgamated to form 78 new justices benches.

  Under the provisions of the Justices of the Peace Act 1997, Magistrates Courts Committees are responsible for the provision of an efficient and effective service to court users. When determining the future of its courthouses, it is for each Committee to identify the scope of its own criteria for the number and location of magistrates courts within its area and the possible financial savings. The financial saving achieved by the closures and amalgamations is not collected centrally and could be obtained only from each Magistrates Courts Committee at a disproportionate cost.

  (a)County Courts closed since April 1994

  County Court

  Date of closure

  Devizes

  1 April 1994

  Frome

  1 April 1994

  Clacton

  5 April 1994

  Sevenoaks

  5 April 1994

  Sheerness

  5 April 1994

  Sudbury

  5 April 1994

  Bangor

  4 July 1994

  Portmadog

  4 July 1994

  Stroud

  4 July 1994

  Stockton-on-Tees

  2 November 1994

  Lampeter

  5 December 1994

  Launceston

  5 December 1994

  Liskeard

  5 December 1994

  Ellesmere Port

  5 December 1994

  Axminster and Chard

  5 December 1994

  Shaftesbury

  5 December 1994

  Amersham

  9 January 1995

  Wisbech

  29 September 1995

  Market Drayton

  27 October 1995

  Brentwood

  29 December 1995

  Bargoed

  29 December 1995

  Barry

  29 December 1995

  Cardigan

  29 December 1995

  Llandrindod Wells

  29 December 1995

  Otley

  2 January 1996

  Alfreton

  16 February 1996

  Ilkeston

  16 February 1996

  Matlock

  16 February 1996

  Sleaford

  16 February 1996

  Spalding

  16 February 1996

  Dover

  29 March 1996

  Folkestone

  29 March 1996

  Newton Abbot

  29 March 1996

  Sittingbourne

  29 March 1996

  St. Austell

  29 March 1996

  Chippenham

  30 april 1996

  Goole

  4 November 1996

  Ammanford

  27 March 1997

  Andover

  30 June 1997

  Braintree

  1 December 1997

  Bishop's Stortford

  1 December 1997

  Alnwick

  15 December 1997

  Blyth

  15 December 1997

  Berwick upon Tweed

  15 December 1997

  Bridlington

  24 December 1997

  Rochdale

  7 September 1998

  Holy well

  7 September 1998

  Camborne and Redruth

  24 December 1998

  Hemel Hempstead

  24 December 1998

  West Bromwich

  24 December 1998

  Loughborough

  31 December 1998

  656W

  (a) County courts closed since April 1994

  County Court

  Date of closure

  Corby

  1 March 1999

  Bridgwater

  20 December 1999

  Great Yarmouth

  31 January 2000

  Grays Thurrock

  31 January 2000

  (b) Magistrates Courthouses closed since September 1995

  Magistrates Courthouse

  Closure date

  Nottingham (Guildhall)

  30 November 1995

  Nottingham (Sand Field House)

  30 November 1995

  Bala

  31 December 1995

  Hunstanton

  31 December 1995

  Pembroke

  31 December 1995

  Tywyn

  31 December 1995

  Whitminster

  31 December 1995

  Bromley (South Street)

  28 February 1996

  Mansfield (Commercial Street)

  28 February 1996

  Hornsea

  31 March 1996

  Howden

  31 March 1996

  Market Weighton

  31 March 1996

  Old Street

  12 July 1996

  Halstead

  31 August 1996

  Biddulph

  30 September 1996

  Cheadle

  30 September 1996

  Kidsgrove

  30 September 1996

  Tonbridge

  31 October 1996

  Amlwch

  31 December 1996

  Bedale

  31 December 1996

  Blaenau Festiniog

  31 December 1996

  Easingwold

  31 December 1996

  East Dereham

  31 December 1996

  Ingleton

  31 December 1996

  Leyburn

  31 December 1996

  Llangollen

  31 December 1996

  Thirsk

  31 December 1996

  Pontardawe

  23 March 1997

  Ellesmere Port

  31 March 1997

  Hampstead

  31 March 1997

  Marylebone (185 Marylebone Road)

  31 March 1997

  Otley

  31 March 1997

  Seaham

  31 March 1997

  Bromsgrove

  31 May 1997

  Ledbury

  31 May 1997

  Hebburn

  5 June 1997

  South Shields (Kepple Street)

  5 June 1997

  Bargoed

  30 June 1997

  Chippenham (Market Place)

  30 June 1997

  Monmouth

  30 June 1997

  Pontlottyn

  30 June 1997

  Pontypool

  30 June 1997

  Ashton under Lyne (Manchester Road)

  31 August 1997

  Duckinsfield

  31 August 1997

  Thorne

  31 August 1997

  Braintree

  31 December 1997

  Clacton on Sea

  31 December 1997

  Saffron Walden

  31 December 1997

  Stokesley

  31 December 1997

  Malton

  6 February 1998

  Appleby

  31 March 1998

  Bishop's Stortford

  31 March 1998

  Chertsey

  31 March 1998

  Farnham

  31 March 1998

  Hatfield

  31 March 1998

  Hitchin

  31 March 1998

  Market Rasen

  31 March 1998

  Marlborough Street

  31 March 1998

  Oxted

  31 March 1998

  Lutterworth

  31 July 1998

  Ripon

  1 August 1998

  Barnard Castle

  31 December 1998

  Clerkenwell

  31 December 1998

  657W

  (b) Magistrates Courthouses closed since September 1995

  Magistrates Courthouse

  Closure date

  Corwen

  31 December 1998

  Diss

  31 December 1998

  Felixstowe

  31 December 1998

  Haverhill

  31 December 1998

  Lytham

  31 December 1998

  Newmarket

  31 December 1998

  Saxmundham

  31 December 1998

  Sheerness

  31 December 1998

  Stowmarket

  31 December 1998

  (c) Amalgamated Justices Benches in England and Wales since 1 February 1994

  Amalgamated Benches-Old benches forming the new benches

  Date

  Bedford and Mid Bedfordshire—Ampthill, Bedford, part Biggleswade

  1 January 2000

  Luton and South Bedfordshire—Luton, Dunstable, part Leighton Buzzard

  Northern Oxfordshire—Banbury, Bicester, Witney

  1 April 1999

  Oxford—Oxford and Thame and Henley

  East Berkshire—Forest, Maidenhead, Slough and Windsor

  Central Buckinghamshire—Aylesbury, Buckingham, Chiltern

  1 April 1994

  Wycombe and Beaconsfield—Wycombe and Burnham

  Carlisle and District—Carlisle and Wigton

  With effect from 1 April 2000

  South Lakeland—South Lakes and Kendal and Lonsdale

  Eden—Appleby and Penrith and Alston and part of Keswick

  West Allerdale and Keswick—West Allerdale and Keswick

  Stourbridge and Halesowen—Halesowen and Stourbridge

  1 April 1997

  Ceredigion—Gogledd Ceredigion, Ceredigion Ganol and De Ceredigion

  1 January 1999

  North Pembrokeshire—Gogledd Preseli and Cleddau

  Carmarthen—Carmethen North and Carmarthen South

  Dunmow and Saffron Walden—Dunmow and Saffron Walden

  1 January 1996

  South West Essex—Brentwood, Thurrock

  1 January 2000

  North West Essex—Dunmow and Saffron Walden, Epping and Ongar and Harlow

  Mid North Essex—Chelmsford, Malden and Witham and part Braintree and Halstead

  North East Essex—Colchester, Harwich and Tendring and remainder of Braintree and Halstead

  North Gloucestershire—Cheltenham, Tewkesbury and North Cotswold

  1 July 1994

  Ynys Mon—North Anglesey and South Anglesey

  1 October 1995

  North Hertfordshire—North Hertfordshire and Stevenage

  1 January 1995

  East Hertfordshire—Bishop's Stanford, Cheshunt and Hertford and Ware

  1 April 1998

  North Lincolnshire—Scunthorpe, Brigg and Barton, and part Epworth and Goole

  1 June 1999

  Goole and Howdenshire—remainder of Epworth and Goole, Hodwenshire, part of South Hunsley Beacon and Howdenshire)

  South Hunsley Beacon (remainder of South Hunsley Beacon and Howdenshire)

  East Central—West Central and East Central

  31 December 1998

  Channel—Ashford and Tenterden, Dover and East Kent, Fokestone and Hythe

  1 January 1999

  Mid Kent—Maidstone, part Tonbridge and Mailing

  West Kent—remainder of Tonbridge and Mailing, Tunbridge Wells and Cranbrook, Sevenoaks, part Dartford)

  Dartford and Gravesham—Dartford and Gravesham

  1 January 2000

  Blackburn, Darwen and Ribble Valley—Blackburn, Darwen and part Ribble Valley

  1 April 1994

  Burnley and Pendle—Burnley, Pendle and remainder of Ribble Valley

  Lancaster—Lancaster and part Wyre

  Preston—Preston and part Ribble Valley

  Blackpool and Fylde—Blackpool and Fylde

  1 January 1999

  Burnley, Pendle and Rossendale—Burnley and Pendle, and Rossendale

  With effect from 1 April 2000

  Melton, Belvoir and Rutland—Melton and Belvoir, and Rutland

  1 January 1999

  Lincoln District—Caistor, Market Rasen and part Lincoln District

  1 July 1999

  Wolds—part Lincoln District and existing Wolds

  Arfon—Bangor and Caernarfon and Gwyrfai

  1 January 1998

  Flintshire—Flint, Hawarden, Mold and part Rhuddlan

  Rhuddlan—remainder of Rhuddlan

  Colwyn—part of Berwyn, part of Colwyn, part of Dyffryn Clwyd

  1 January 1999

  Denbighshire—part of Berwyn, part of Colwyn, part of Dyffryn Clwyd, Rhuddlan

  Wrexham Maelor—Wrexham Maelor and part of Berwyn

  Claro—part of original area

  1 January 1997

  York—part Claro, part Easingwold, part Selby and York

  Northallerton—part Easingwold and Northallerton

  Ryedale—part Easingwold, Ryedale

  Selby—remainder of Selby

  Harrogate—Claro, Ripon Liberty, part of Northallerton, part of Selby

  1 August 1998

  Scarborough—Scarborough, Whitby Strand and Ryedale and part of Northallerton

  Northallerton and Richmond—Richmond and Northallerton

  658W

  (b)Magistrates Courthouses closed since September 1995

  Magistrates Courthouse

  Closure date

  West Mailing

  31 December 1998

  Abingdon

  31 March 1999

  Christchurch

  31 March 1999

  Henley on Thames

  31 March 1999

  Morley

  31 March 1999

  Pudsey

  31 March 1999

  Windsor

  31 March 1999

  Stow on the Wold

  30 June 1999

  March

  31 December 1999

  659W

  (c)Amalgamated Justices Benches in England and Wales since 1 February 1994

  Amalgamated Benches-Old benches forming the new benches

  date

  Abingdon, Didcot and Wantage—part Thame and Henley, part Abingdon, Didcot and Wantage

  1 July 1994

  Bicester—part Woodstock, Bicester

  Banbury—part Woodstock, North Oxfordshire, Chipping Norton

  Oxford—part Thames and Henley, Oxford and part Abingdon

  Thame and Henley—remainder of Thame and Henley

  Witney—Witney, remainder of Woodstock

  De Brycheiniog—Brecon and Ystradgynlais

  1 Januarv 1999

  De Maldwyn—Machynlleth and Newtown

  Rochdale, Middleton and Heywood—Rochdale, Middleton and Heywood

  1 January 1996

  North Staffordshire—Staffordshire Moorlands and Newcastle under Lyme and Pirehill North

  1 January 2000

  Mid Staffordshire and Rugeley—Mid Staffordshire and Rugeley

  Cannock and Seisdon—Cannock and Seisdon

  Lichfield and Tamworth—Lichfield and Tamworth

  North East Suffolk—Beecles, Lowestoft and Saxmundham

  1 January 1995

  Haverhill and Sudbury—Haverhill and Sudbury

  1 January 1999

  St. Edmundsbury and Stowmarket—St. Edmundsbury and Stowmarket

  Tameside—Ashton-Under-Lyme and South Tameside

  1 April 1994

  Neath Port Talbot—Neath, Port Talbot

  1 April 1996

  Swansea—Swansea, Lliw Valley

  Horsham—Horsham and part Steyning

  1 April 1996

  Worthing and District—Worthing and remainder of Steyning

  North West Wiltshire—North Wiltshire, West Wiltshire

  1 January 2000

  South East Wiltshire—Kennet, Salisbury

  Magistrates (Training)
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what training magistrates receive on sentencing; and if he will make a statement. [112806]

  Mr. Lock
  Training of magistrates is the responsibility of individual Magistrates Courts Committees within a framework set on behalf of the Lord Chancellor by the Judicial Studies Board, an independent, non-departmental public body. Magistrates are trained to approach sentencing in a structured way, taking into account a range of factors including the nature and seriousness of the 660W
  offence. Sentencing is a matter for judicial discretion taking into account the statutory framework, any Court of Appeal sentencing guideline judgments and other relevant case law. Magistrates are encouraged to use the sentencing guidelines published by the Magistrates Association, with the approval of the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice, in reaching their decisions.

  The Human Rights Act 1998 and the revised sentencing powers in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 create new challenges for the magistracy but the Government, which is committed to the lay magistracy continuing to play a significant role in our system of justice, is confident that magistrates will rise to those challenges.

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

Lord Powell of Bayswater
Sir Charles David Powell, Knight, KCMG, having been created Baron Powell of Bayswater, of Canterbury in the County of Kent, for life—Was. in his robes, introduced between the Baroness Thatcher and the Lord Patten.
Lord Birt
Sir John Birt, Knight, having been created Baron Birt, of Liverpool in the County of Merseyside, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Baroness Jay of Paddington and the Lord Burns, and made the solemn Affirmation.

Mineworkers' Compensation
2.48 p.m.
Lord Islwyn Lord Islwyn asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is the present situation regarding the payment to miners suffering from lung diseases as a result of their employment in the coal-mining industry.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Government signed the handling agreement with the solicitors representing the claimants in September last year. Since then, the DTI has made over 6,800 offers based on spirometry testing and, so far, over 1,500 claimants have accepted. Another 2,800 such offers will be made subject to checking work histories. In addition, some 17,000 individual interim payments have been made. Over £51 million in compensation has been paid to ex-miners and their families.
Healthcall, the contractor delivering the medical assessments, has established 17 testing centres which are operational now, with a further nine centres opening by the end of March. Those will provide the capacity to carry out 2,500 assessments per month. The main constraints are waiting for the documentation from solicitors and collecting medical records from various sources. The sooner those are obtained, the sooner people will receive their money.
Lord Islwyn: My Lords, does the Minister appreciate that in Wales there are reputed to be no fewer than 25,000 claimants? Will he confirm that none of the settled cases or those yet to be processed will be subject to compensation recovery from the DSS? Have the Government investigated allegations that solicitors are demanding exorbitant fees from
902
miners and their widows? One firm is reckoned to have claimed no less than £2 million. Finally, will he emphatically refute a recent report that claims from members of the Union of Democratic Mineworkers are being given preferential treatment because they are prepared to accept the degrading, so-called "shuttle" test?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am unable to speak about individual payments to firms of solicitors. On the issue of DSS payments, three out of the 15 bases of payment—that is, loss of past earnings, cost of past care or loss of past mobility—may affect the compensation paid by the DSS. In other words, DSS compensation may affect the present compensation scheme. In contrast to the position under the previous Government, when it was possible for the DSS to recover general and special damages which could amount to the whole of the compensation, under the present rules that situation is more limited.
Lord Renton: My Lords, bearing in mind that pneumoconiosis, caused by inhaling coal dust, is the principal cause of problems in this context, can the Minister say whether the National Joint Pneumoconiosis Committee still functions, as it used to most usefully? Is it still presided over by a junior Minister? Do any of the major hospitals in mining areas have a pneumoconiosis wing?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, pneumoconiosis is only one, and not necessarily the most important, of the diseases covered by the compensation scheme. I shall write to the noble Lord on the other points to which he referred.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House whether the monitoring group that deals with this matter is still in existence? If so, what problems is it dealing with at the moment?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the monitoring group is in existence and it is extremely helpful. We have had three meetings and the fourth is to be convened before the end of this month. We envisage that the monitoring group will continue to provide an independent check on the work carried out.
Lord Lofthouse of Pontefract: My Lords, will my noble friend inform the House what progress has been made on claims by widows of former mineworkers? Is he aware of any widows who have received any settlements? Can he inform me when such claims are expected to be settled? He will be aware that if the delay continues widows, like their former husbands, will die before they receive any compensation.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, my noble friend refers to an extremely serious problem of compensation arriving too late, which is common throughout the compensation scheme. However, widows' claims have priority over those of other bereaved families. There is the special provision of the

903
bereavement award of £7,500 paid when a death certificate indicates that death has been caused by any of the diseases covered by the compensation scheme. More than 2,000 claims for that bereavement award have been paid out in addition to the normal compensation.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, on the matter of compensation arriving too late, will the Minister consider extending the system of interim payments? In a large number of cases interim payments are made, but in many others such payments are still outstanding.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, there is not a limitation on interim payments. Interim payments are being made and will continue to be made. Of course, difficulty arises on the agreement of full and final payments. Such payments have been made wherever possible on the basis of spirometry tests, but inevitably full and final payments based on the medical assessment programme will take some time to complete in the light of the timetable that I described in my first Answer.
Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, will my noble friend ensure that there is further and ministerial consideration of the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Islwyn, not least in regard to legal fees and to the geographical question?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Yes, my Lords, I can certainly give my noble friend that assurance. I am sure that he is aware that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and Helen Liddell have been closely involved personally in all aspects of the compensation scheme.
Lord Islwyn: My Lords, does the Minister appreciate that he has not replied to my Question regarding the Union of Democratic Mineworkers, or the scab union as we refer to it in South Wales?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I apologise. I am supposed to answer only two supplementary Questions at a time. There is no discrimination either for or against the Union of Democratic Mineworkers. That union has decided to use its internal resources rather than external solicitors, but there is no evidence that that has resulted either in a speeding up or a slowing down of its claims.

Nicotine Replacement Therapy
2.57 p.m.
Lord Rea Lord Rea asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they propose to take in response to the recommendation in the Royal College of Physicians report, Nicotine Addiction in Britain, that
904
nicotine replacement therapy should be improved and made available on prescription through the National Health Service.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): My Lords, we welcome this report by the Tobacco Advisory Group of the Royal College of Physicians and will consider that recommendation carefully. We are aware of the important role of nicotine replacement therapy in helping smokers to give up, and are already investing substantial sums of money in NHS smoking cessation services, which include the provision of a week's free nicotine replacement therapy for poorer smokers.
Lord Rea: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer, which gave some detail of the Government's action. Is he aware that in terms of cost per life saved, nicotine replacement therapy is a great deal more economical than many other treatments that are available in the National Health Service for the prevention of coronary heart disease? Could NRT on the NHS be a welcome step to help the new heart tsar to work himself out of a job through prevention rather than cure? In the case of coronary heart disease, treatment is usually too late and never completely effective.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I am sure that we all hope that the heart tsar is put out of business soon because of the success of the programmes that we want to institute. However, I believe it will take a little time yet. I certainly agree that smoking cessation programmes are an important component of a preventative approach.
On the comparison between the cost-effectiveness of various preventative and treatment measures, it is important that one compares like with like. There is no doubt that nicotine replacement therapy, alongside advice to smokers who want to give up, can be an effective intervention measure.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, in the National Service Framework for Coronary Heart Disease, published by the Government, smoking cessation clinics form an extremely important part. Does the limitation on the ability of those running such clinics to prescribe only one week's NRT to poorer smokers recognise the fact that every year smoking costs something like £1.5 billion to the NHS? In this millennium year, about 1.5 million are trying to give up smoking.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Myself included, my Lords. I believe that smoking cessation programmes are an important part of our general drive in relation to improving health in this country. On nicotine replacement therapy, in the current financial year we have focused on health action zones. The zones are able to offer one week's free use of NRT. Next year we shall extend that one week's free use to the rest of the country. Of course, we shall consider carefully the

905
recommendations of the Royal College of Physicians, but I believe it would be better to evaluate the results obtained over the two years before making a firm decision about extending the use of NRT.
Baroness Massey of Darwen: My Lords, will the Minister comment on a recent article in the British Medical Journal which said that smokers usually start out as children who are addicted to nicotine by the time they are adults? Can he say what efforts the Government are making to encourage people not to start smoking as opposed to giving up?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, that is the other side of the coin. We are taking a number of measures to dissuade young people from taking up smoking, including the banning of tobacco advertising as soon as legal action by the tobacco industry permits; toughening up on the enforcement of legislation outlawing the sale of tobacco products to children; and conducting a campaign targeted at young people as part of the tobacco education campaign later this year.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, first, I must declare an interest as a quadruple bypass alumnus, whose vascular disease was probably caused by heavy smoking before I gave up on 31st July 1976. Have the Government reached any conclusion on the recommendation referred to in the BMJ's article as perhaps the most important in the report? The recommendation was for an independent expert committee to examine the institutional options for nicotine regulation and to report to the Secretary of State for Health on future regulation of nicotine products and the management and prevention of nicotine addiction in Britain. Is not that a recommendation that the Government can accept at once?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, first, I congratulate the noble Lord on giving up smoking such a long time ago; I am extremely envious of him. Nicotine addiction and the scientific basis for concluding that nicotine delivered through tobacco smoke should be regarded as an addictive drug was an issue raised by the report of the Royal College of Physicians. We shall give consideration to that issue and also to the suggestion that in the labelling of tobacco products reference should be made to nicotine addiction.
However, in terms of smoking prevention we need a concerted programme of developments, including the banning of tobacco advertising, strong programmes to discourage young people from taking up the habit, and ensuring that those who do smoke and want to give up—as the noble Lord rightfully said is the position with many people in this country—are given the strongest possible support.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, in view of the Minister's admission, does he agree that many of those who do not smoke do not realise that it is an addiction? Yet some people have been known to say that heroin
906
and cocaine addiction are easier to crack—perhaps that is not the right word; to overcome—than nicotine addiction. Bearing in mind that this is a serious position and too often it is said that smoking is a lack of discipline rather than addiction, is not there a case for the Government to come down heavily in trying to cope with this addiction as they try to cope with the addiction of heroin and cocaine? In other words, cannot the therapy be made available to everybody and not just for one week?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, in relation to the use of the word "addiction" one must draw a balance in making available to smokers the stark facts in relation to the risks of their smoking. For instance, there is a suggestion from the Irish Government in relation to the labelling of tobacco products that reference should be made to nicotine addiction. We will bear that suggestion in mind. More generally, we need to evaluate the results of the use of NRT over the next year or so. It is worth remembering that the cost of purchasing NRT for one week roughly equates to the cost of buying a packet of 20 cigarettes.
The aim of allowing one week's free use by those who can claim prescription exemption is to give them a kick start alongside the professional advice that can be given to help people cease smoking. It is worth making the point also that we are the only country in the world providing free NRT. We have the right programme, but should evaluate the use of NRT over the next year or so.

Religious Discrimination
3.4 p.m.
Lord Janner of Braunstone Lord Janner of Braunstone asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will extend race relations legislation so as to outlaw discrimination on grounds of religion.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Bassam of Brighton): My Lords, the Government fully recognise the concerns of minority faith communities which feel that they suffer religious discrimination and the calls for that to be made subject to the law. That is why my right honourable friend the Home Secretary took the positive step of commissioning research into this difficult and sensitive area. We have already published an interim report and expect the full findings of the research to be ready for publication in the autumn. They will help to develop the Government's approach to the issue.
Lord Janner: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer, but does he accept that the Race Relations Act (rightly, I believe) bans discrimination against Jewish people such as myself, against Sikhs and against Rastafarians, but does not provide the same protection to Muslims, Hindus and the majority of people in this country who are Christians? Surely

907
that distinction is outrageous, illogical and wrong. Will Her Majesty's Government take appropriate steps to remedy what is a disgraceful anomaly?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I fully accept that it is an anomaly. It is for that reason that the Government embarked on the process of conducting research in this area. I accept also that 2 million Muslims feel discriminated against by the operation of the law. It is an anomaly that crept in and one which we intend to tackle. That will be one of the fruits of the research when it is finally published in October. We shall have to look fully at the whole issue at that time.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, the Minister's reply was helpful. How will the Government deal with breaches of the Human Rights Act 1998 now that it incorporates the convention rights set out in Articles 9, 13 and 14, which prohibit discrimination of any kind, particularly religious discrimination?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the Human Rights Act will be helpful in this area of the law. That does not come into being until 2nd October this year. It will be a major step; it is a valuable initiative. I take the view that it will help to establish a new culture of rights and responsibilities within the UK law. It is something of which our Government are particularly proud. It will help and that, allied with the way we are reviewing discrimination legislation with regard to religion, will help to change the whole attitude in that field of policy.
Lord Elton: My Lords, has the Minister come across the surprising difficulty in the middle of all this, which is the near impossibility of defining what a religion is? As his department has not managed to define religion in the past 15 years, will he concentrate on preventing discrimination against known religious faiths rather than religious grounds as a concept?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the noble Lord raises an interesting part of the debate. I share with him the difficulties of defining exactly what religion is. We feel we understand it when confronted with it, but are never sure when someone comes up with another religion. It is a problem. It is something we shall need to consider when the research is published and no doubt we shall have to struggle to provide a definition. Other countries have encountered the same problems. I know that Germany's case law led that country into difficulties. We perhaps need to learn from the experience of our European Union partners in this matter.
Lord Ahmed: My Lords, does not my noble friend agree with me that the Islamophobia Commission report and the Islamic Human Rights Commission reports prove that there is religious discrimination against Muslims? Why therefore is it necessary to conduct further research before the Government introduce religious discrimination laws?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, both reports wisely referred to by my noble friend Lord Ahmed provide us with valuable insights. However, I do not think that they can be seen as the final chapter in the story: rather, they tell us in what direction we need to be heading. For that reason among other reasons, the fruits of such research will prove to be of great value when we consider how we might shape legislation in the future. Because of the issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, legislation in this field needs to be carefully thought through in order that we get it right and do not produce further anomalies.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that our debates on the Race Relations (Amendment) Bill drew out exactly the point referred to by my noble friend Lord Elton? All of us condemn discrimination on the grounds of religion—whatever that may be. However, the present difficulty is that the religions mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Janner—that of the Sikhs and, indeed, his own religion—combine with race and nationality. However, other religions do not combine in that way. Does the noble Lord agree that the difficulty lies in trying to define, in legal terms, what exactly it is that we are trying to make illegal? Drawing up the law is the difficult part of this exercise and that is where the University of Derby may be of help.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I, too, hope that the University of Derby will be helpful in these matters. That research, which will have been conducted over a period of 18 months, will give us some valuable insights. I am grateful to the noble Lord for sharing with us his understanding and appreciation of the problem. It is an issue upon which a final conclusion is long overdue.
The Lord Bishop of Wakefield: My Lords, will the Minister give an assurance that, in framing such legislation, the Government will consult the Christian Churches and the other faiths, as well as bodies such as the Churches' Commission for Inter-Faith Relations? Furthermore, will the Government be sensitive to the need, which I certainly recognise in my own multiracial diocese of Wakefield, to set that legislation in the context of a wider process of education and good practice?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am happy to provide the right reverend Prelate the assurance that he seeks. It is important that we continue to consult—as we have already done—throughout the period of research with all the faiths involved in this issue. It is important that, when undertaking such research, we recognise the rich diversity of faiths represented in England and Wales. I am told that we have perhaps the most diverse range of religious communities. For that reason, I believe that we must tread carefully as we progress towards framing legislation. That is an issue for the future.

DVLA: Protection of Licence Holder Data
3.12 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
What restrictions apply to the provision by the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency of names and addresses of licence holders to unofficial inquirers.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Whitty): My Lords, regulations allow the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency to disclose vehicle keeper details to the police, to local authorities and to anyone who can demonstrate "reasonable cause" to require the information. "Reasonable cause" is not defined in law. Each application is considered on its merits, taking into account the delicate balance between the needs of those who require the information and the rights of those whose personal information is collected by the agency for specific purposes.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply. While I recognise the benefit to the police of being able instantly to obtain information on a registration number by telephone—that was how the Yorkshire Ripper was caught—has the noble Lord seen reports that confidence tricksters have been obtaining information from the DVLA and then sending fake police penalty notices to the owners of cars and demanding fines for alleged offences? Does he agree that only authorised persons should be given such information and that the Data Protection Commissioner should be involved here?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I believe that I recognise the reports to which the noble Lord has referred, although I am not sure that I entirely agree with his description of what has been happening. The vast majority of inquiries relate to insurance and finance companies. Noble Lords will recognise that there is a need for those bodies to have access to such information. As regards the particular cases referred to by the noble Lord, there is a problem in relation to companies that act on behalf of landlords and place removal notices on vehicles occupying private land. Obviously, landlords have an interest in getting such cars removed, and therefore "reasonable cause" would cover those circumstances. The DVLA is reviewing its procedures to see whether any improvements can be made to exclude inappropriate use of that facility.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, is there a ruling or set of guidelines to cover what is a "reasonable cause" here? If not, should there not be such a ruling?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, of all people, my noble friend will recognise that "reasonable cause" is not precisely defined in law. The DVLA's current review of procedures, to which I have already referred, may well lead to tighter guidelines.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that it would be a wise move for the DVLA to license
910
bodies other than police forces which may legitimately require the names and addresses of vehicle owners so that the agency knows that it is giving details only to reputable licensed bodies?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I believe that most people would recognise that organisations such as insurance companies need access to such information. I believe that a bureaucratic structure of licensing insurance and finance companies would be too heavy-handed in this area. There is a relatively small grey area that needs to be addressed by new procedures. The DVLA is currently investigating that.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, assuming that the DVLA uses some form of criterion for deciding who can or cannot receive such information, can the Minister tell the House whether the DVLA would consider publishing those criteria?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, these issues are decided on a case-by-case basis. Clearly, a balance must be struck between the needs of an agent for a landowner and the privacy of the person whose car is in question. These matters must be dealt with on their merits. For that reason, it is not easy to publish general guidelines.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, will the noble Lord take away and consider the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, that guidelines really should be produced?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I believe that I have already indicated that the DVLA is looking again at its procedures. If clearer guidelines are needed, they will be adopted internally. However, I believe that the need to address these matters on a case-by-case basis must be paramount, because the balance of advantage between confidentiality and information, convenience and "reasonable cause" for the body seeking information about the owner of a vehicle, differs in each instance.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, will the noble Lord say whether the Data Protection Commissioner has yet been approached and whether her views are being taken into account on this matter?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the Commissioner for Data Protection is involved in relation to this area and I can confirm that her views are being sought.

Reform of the House of Lords
3.17 p.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Jay of Paddington)The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Jay of Paddington) rose to move, That this House takes note of the report of the Royal Commission on the reform of the House of Lords A House for the Future (Cm 4534).
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I open this debate on the Royal Commission report, A House for the Future, with great enthusiasm, confident that

911
because of it we will make progress to achieve full-scale reform of this House far more rapidly in this century than we did in the last one.
Perhaps I may begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, and his distinguished commissioner colleagues for their authoritative and detailed consideration of a very wide agenda. I am sure that I speak for the whole House in congratulating them. Furthermore, I am delighted that the noble Lords, Lord Wakeham, Lord Butler and Lord Hurd, and my noble friend Lady Dean, who all served on the commission, will be taking part in the debate today. Obviously, they will add uniquely to our first discussion of their new programme for reform.
The Royal Commission has delivered, on time, a report that addresses all the elements in its terms of reference in a comprehensive and coherent fashion. It has delivered a unanimous report. I believe that that unanimity should be emphasised. The different commissioners began their deliberations from different political and constitutional positions but, in the end, they were united in their recommendations. In producing a unanimous report, they have established a very firm platform on which we can all work for further reform. The issues have been thoroughly analysed and clearly set before us. The first principles have been agreed: that stage of the process has been completed.
I do not intend in this debate to respond in detail to all of the 132 recommendations of the report or, indeed, to any of them. I imagine that that will be the position of most contributors. Some speakers may want to make a case for a particular proposal—others may wish, as I do this afternoon, to give a broad overview of the report and our response. I look forward to what I am sure will be a stimulating and open debate. I hope very much that it will be a positive debate. Throughout the history of attempts to reform your Lordships' House, too much emphasis has been given to the negative, to the problems with any proposed reform. The Government intend to take a positive attitude to this report, and I hope that others will do the same.
We think that one of the strengths of the report is that it is evolutionary. As such, it is firmly within our tradition of constitutional and parliamentary change. When we look at history, it is rare to say that a Rubicon was crossed in that process—a Rubicon that changed everything overnight. Perhaps the Great Reform Act 1832 was such an occasion, but even that, looking back, was modest in its effects compared to the universal adult suffrage now enjoyed which was reached over the following century in successive steps.
The Royal Commission's report takes your Lordships' House, as it is now, and builds on it. It suggests a fresh approach to the terms of membership of the bulk of the Members. It introduces a new element in the form of regional elected members. Both of these elements can be evolutionary. It does not, for example, exclude the possibility that, over time, the elected element could increase in number and importance if that proved necessary for the continued
912
effectiveness of this place. In that respect. it is like the introduction of life Peers in 1958. It also leaves open the possibility that the role of the second Chamber itself could evolve—perhaps with more specialist functions, perhaps emphasising the role of the nominated body whose membership would reflect the significance of those specialist functions.
However, these hypothetical visions of the longer term do not mean that the Government will consign the Royal Commission's report to a dusty top shelf. We do not intend that to happen. I am well aware that there has been detective work in the press; for example, trying to read the entrails of the wording of the advertisements for the interim appointments commission and attempting to calculate the date of the next general election, all aimed at showing that the Government intend to kick the report into the long grass. That is all speculation. The Government's record on reform of this House speaks for itself: it is that we say what we intend to do, and then we do it. We plan to proceed in the same way in the future.
So today perhaps I may say it clearly. The Government accept the principles underlying the main elements of the Royal Commission's proposals on the future role and structure of this House, and will act on them. That is, we agree that the second Chamber should clearly be subordinate, largely nominated but with a minority elected element and with a particular responsibility to represent the regions. We agree that there should be a statutory appointments commission.
The principles that underlie the Royal Commission's recommendations, and the Government's acceptance of them, are these. First, the second Chamber must be clearly that—a second Chamber, subordinate to the House of Commons. If both Houses were of equal authority that would be a recipe for gridlock. Secondly, it should have the powers and the authority to act as one of the checks and balances within the constitution. It should be equipped to make a significant and distinctive contribution to the legislative process. It should foster independent judgment. Thirdly, following devolution, it should provide a parliamentary voice for the nations and regions at the heart of the nation's affairs.
The noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, and his colleagues, rightly, first addressed the question of the roles and functions of the second Chamber. Both he and we have rejected the extreme approach represented by unicameralism. We start from where we are. The most important role of the second Chamber is to scrutinise, and, if necessary, revise legislation. But it must do so as the subordinate Chamber. The Royal Commission's report recommends that as the second Chamber is to remain a subordinate Chamber, the principles underlying the Salisbury convention should also be retained. The Government agree.
The elected Chamber and the Government must have an expectation that legislation that has been proposed and approved by the other place will get

913
through. I know that that is also the position of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, who, in his well-known constitutional lecture last autumn, said:
"The House will always accept the primacy of the elected House. It will always accept that the Queen's Government must be carried on".
The Royal Commission's report makes a number of specific recommendations in this area, particularly with regard to secondary legislation. It raises the question of whether the second Chamber should have the right to reject, or only delay, secondary legislation. This is, of course, a recently topical question. The Government have not denied in the current debates that at present the House of Lords has the power and therefore, in one sense, the right to reject secondary legislation. Formal changes to this power would necessarily have broad implications for the other place and the balance of authority between the Houses. This is clearly a very important area where detailed consideration of the far-reaching proposals in the commission's report must be given by the whole of Parliament.
The Royal Commission makes some interesting proposals to extend the role of this House, which would not undermine the position of the House of Commons. The Government are attracted by the recommendations for a special constitutional Select Committee. This would consider the constitutional implications of legislation and monitor the continuing effects of the changes that are introduced. Another attractive proposal is that there should be additional functions for your Lordships' members of the new Joint Human Rights Committee. These proposals are all consistent with a scrutiny role and would enable this House to act on behalf of Parliament as a whole.
Following the recommendations on the role and functions of the new Chamber, the Royal Commission's report then considers its membership. What would be the chief desirable characteristics for a membership to fulfil the functions that it describes? How should that membership be best selected? It concludes that the second Chamber should be authoritative, confident and representative. Members should have a breadth of experience outside politics but be politically aware, and they should have the ability to bring a moral, philosophical or spiritual perspective to bear on the issues before them. The second Chamber should not be dominated by one political party or by party organisations. The list is undoubtedly a formidable one both as regards qualifications and characteristics. The Royal Commission concluded that all of them, except a regional voice, would best be delivered by a careful nominations system, operating within a framework of rules about the overall political balance of the second Chamber and with a continuing explicitly nonpolitical element. The Government find those arguments persuasive. They are drawn logically from what the second Chamber should do, and how it should add value to the governance of the United Kingdom.
However, there are also other, equally important, arguments drawn from what the second Chamber should not be, which were persuasive to the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, and his colleagues and are persuasive to Ministers. One has only to look at the cornerstone of the unified parliamentary political system in this country—the clear expression of the will of the people in a general election. Through that election, they decide who will form a government. They also elect someone to represent them individually in the House of Commons. Both those features seem to us fundamental factors that reform of the second, subordinate Chamber should not interfere with. For those reasons, the Royal Commission suggests that any proposal totally to elect a second Chamber under the mistaken view that it would increase the democratic base of Parliament would in fact undermine that democracy.
The Government agree with that analysis. It is an unassailable principle that the right to govern depends on maintaining the confidence of the House of Commons. If the representatives of the people withhold their consent in a vote of confidence in another place, the people are deemed to have withdrawn their consent. The Government fall and another general election follows. This is clear; it is democratic; and, so far, it is unchallenged. If a second body of people were also elected, perhaps on a different franchise, the clear voice of the people through the present system must, necessarily, be obscured and perhaps, paradoxically, democratic responsibility weakened.
The challenge to those who press the case for a totally elected second Chamber is to explain how they respond to that fundamental point. It may be said that the people should only be governed by those they have elected. That is true, but it does not support the case of advocates of a totally elected second Chamber. The second Chamber does not, and should not, govern us. We are not a federal government but a unitary parliamentary democracy.
The siren voices who have urged the Government to reject the report of the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, as undemocratic have been loud. But, again, I challenge those who disagree with the conclusions of the Royal Commission to say whether they think that it is the analysis of the role of the second Chamber which is wrong, or the conclusion that a totally elected Chamber would not properly fulfil it. In either case, or, indeed, in both, they should offer positive alternative ideas on the role of membership of a second Chamber. The Royal Commission, after careful analysis, reached unanimous, cross-party conclusions. I suggest therefore that this is not a question to be answered by an opportunistic or partisan political view.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I hope that I may interrupt the noble Baroness before she leaves this important and fundamental part of her speech. There appeared this morning on the front page of the Telegraph a report, which appeared authoritative, stating that the noble Baroness had ruled out the most democratic option of the Wakeham report: that is, to

915
elect some 190 Peers to a House of over 500. Will the noble Baroness either confirm or deny the contents of that article? Will she also say—as this was slightly obscure—whether she accepts the principle that there should be an elected element in this House?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, as regards the noble Lord's final point, I am afraid that I have obviously not made myself clear. I specifically said that the Government accept the principle of a minority elected element in this House. As regards the Daily Telegraph, I regret that I have not seen the report the noble Lord mentioned. I have certainly not spoken to the staff of the Daily Telegraph and, as far as I know, no one has spoken to them on my behalf. If they have done so in the terms the noble Lord suggests, they were inaccurate in that respect because I have given no opinion on that subject.
I continue with my remarks on the Royal Commission and party politics. The Royal Commission said that while the second Chamber should not be dominated by party politics, nor can it be divorced from them. The Government agree. There should continue to be overt political representation. We also agree that no party should seek a majority in the second Chamber and that the balance of political representation should be determined according to the votes cast in the preceding general election. Noble Lords will recognise that this builds on our own commitments in respect of the transitional House.
The Government have always agreed that there should be a continuing non-political element. We accept the argument that the presence of those who have no overt party affiliation has helped to keep the House of Lords less partisan and that this characteristic is a valuable one which should be retained.
We also agree that a statutory appointments commission should form part of any permanent arrangement. This proposal again builds on what we have already undertaken, on a non-statutory basis, for the transitional House. We shall want to consider carefully exactly what the statutory appointments commission's powers and functions should be. Those who recall the debates on what was then the House of Lords Bill in the previous Session know that this is a complex issue. We had a variety of proposals at different stages of the Bill for a statutory body, none of which attracted universal support, and none of which, I believe, is the same as that proposed by the Royal Commission. But for long-term reform the Government accept the principle that a statutory commission is the way to proceed.
One relevant question in which your Lordships are particularly interested, and on which we would be interested to hear your Lordships' views, is that of the link with the peerage. As your Lordships know, the Royal Commission says very firmly that the peerage and membership of the second Chamber should be separated. As your Lordships will also be aware, there has been confusion in the past—this arose during our discussions on what was then the House of Lords
916
Bill—about whether a peerage is intended primarily to confer membership of this House, or to confer a particularly prestigious honour.
The Royal Commission proposals clearly eliminate that ambiguity. This again is a complex issue involving serious questions about the prerogative, but it is clearly relevant to explore decoupling membership of the second Chamber from the peerage. Obviously, in the circumstances which the Royal Commission proposes, being a Peer would not preclude someone being a Member of the second Chamber, any more than being a knight of the realm precludes membership of another place. I am sure your Lordships will not be surprised to hear that the views of current Members of this House on this matter will carry great weight with the Government.
I want to turn now to what the Royal Commission says about a minority elected element. I hope that my comments will help the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde. The terms of reference asked the Royal Commission particularly to look at the role the second Chamber might play in the evolving constitutional settlement represented by devolution and to look for a clearer voice for the regions. We agree with its proposal that this would best be done by the introduction of a small elected element. This would not undermine the link between individual MPs and their constituents because the role of these elected persons would be, and would be seen to be, quite different. Nor would their numbers be sufficient to undermine the distinctive character of the proposed second Chamber. The Government intend to listen carefully to discussion and debate on the commission's options and any other permutations—I imagine that the various proposals were not universal—which may be put forward during this debate and at other times. No doubt the other place will have strong views on this subject. But I want to emphasise this afternoon that the Government accept the principle of a minority of elected members.
The Government have always said that we hope to proceed to the next stage of reform by consensus. That is why we are not today advancing cut and dried conclusions on anything except the overall approach. One of the main purposes of this debate is, I hope, to begin to build a constructive consensus.
As I said earlier, we are encouraged by the fact that the Royal Commission's report was unanimous. All political parties were represented on the commission. So at least prima facie it seems sensible to suggest that a way forward which is consistent with its conclusions should have a good chance of commanding wide agreement. My noble and learned friend the Attorney-General and I, and my right honourable friend the President of the Council in another place, are currently undertaking informal consultations to see what the basis for a consensus might be.
I have already had preliminary conversations with the Conservative and Cross-Bench leaders in this House. We have also discussed the report with representatives of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. We are in contact with the Church of England and other denominations over the proposals on

917
religious representation. We shall also want to listen to what the other faith communities say. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, is happy to make himself available to discuss the details of the report's proposals, and I am sure that other commissioners would probably do the same.
The aim of gathering these views and voices is obviously to try to formulate broad agreement, at least on the principles of the commission's recommendations. If this can be achieved, the details of the proposals and their implementation will then require careful consideration. Much of the reform agenda will affect both Houses of Parliament, and needs to be considered by both Houses. In their White Paper, the Government proposed a Joint Committee to look at these issues. Inevitably the timing and nature of further, formal proceedings to elaborate the commission's proposals will depend to some degree on the extent of prior agreement on principles. The Government hope that by making clear their position to support the framework at this stage, it will be possible to move soon to detailed discussion.
I hope that there is no one either in Parliament or outside who is sceptical of the Government's intentions to act further on reform. If nothing else, the fact that we have not yet completely achieved our 1997 manifesto commitment in respect of the hereditary Peers is a powerful incentive. The Royal Commission report seems to us a good basis to build on. We agree with its overall approach to the issues it was asked to consider. Obviously, there is a great deal more work to be done on the detail. Nothing I have said today indicates that the Government accept any particular one of the report's detailed proposals. We shall be working on these during the months ahead, we hope with the active co-operation of others. But this is where we will start from in delivering on the second stage of reform. We agree with the broad thrust of the conclusions the Royal Commission has reached. It is evolutionary; it ties in with our constitutional history and principles.
At the beginning of the twentieth century, at the beginning of the struggle to change this House, Winston Churchill wrote:
"Most men expected that gradually, as things happen in the history of our country, the House of Lords would pass peacefully and painlessly away".
At the beginning of the twenty-first century, by contrast, this Government have achieved one historic step of reform, and today we have a Royal Commission's recommendations which will enable this second Chamber to develop as the constitutional settlement evolves. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House takes note of the report of the Royal Commission on the reform of the House of Lords A House for the Future (Cm 4534).—(Baroness Jay of Paddington.)
3.40 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, in her opening words the Leader of the House said that she was enthusiastic
918
about the debate. Looking at the long list of speakers before us, I hope that she will feel equally so when we get to the end of it.
We on this side of the House are grateful for the chance again to debate the future of this House. The report of the commission chaired by my noble friend Lord Wakeham is a remarkable accomplishment, particularly given the short time allowed by the Government. We are glad that the Wakeham Commission was set up; we asked for it continually since the general election and it has produced a good report. It will go down with, among others, the Bryce Commission, the Home Report and the Mackay Commission as a major contribution to thinking about the second Chamber.
But it is not the Holy Grail. It is the view of an eminent group of people about options for the future of the House. They did not decide on a specific set of proposals. They may have been ultimately united, but what united them were different opinions on the form of election to this House. They have rightly put this issue back to Parliament, and it is in Parliament that the discussion should now be carried forward.
We will not, of course, support every detail of the report's proposals, but there are many things with which we are in agreement. We are only half-way through change to your Lordships' House. We always contended that there should be no stage one without stage two; I am still convinced that we were right. We always suspected that the Government had blundered into constitutional change more by accident than design. As a result, we are floundering in a constitutional morass. One has only to look at what is happening in Scotland, Wales and the on-going farce in London and the brutal truth is obvious: in none of these areas has the Government remotely thought things through.
Returning to the subject before us, is it not extraordinary that, after three-and-a-half years of debate, the only force in the land about whose ideas for the future of this House we know nothing is the Government? Perhaps the real problem is not that we do not know what they want but that they do not know what they want.
The Prime Minister has torn up a subtle, open, flexible and functioning constitution that had protected us from the civil conflict seen in every other major country in the past 350 years. That constitution was midwife to the industrial revolution, to the rule of law, to the cradling of parliamentary democracy and to the achievement of enormous prosperity in parallel with dramatic social change. But this Prime Minister has torn it to shreds. He is like a child in a constitutional toy shop, dismantling everything without a clue about how to put it back together.
Now we are told by Mr Peter Riddell of The Times that the Prime Minister is not really interested in the constitution at all. Thank you very much—at least we now know where he stands. He is not interested: we need not wait for his ideas. The noble Baroness confirmed that when she said that the Government's

919
response today was not an authoritative one—she said that it was not one that dealt with every specific proposal or, indeed, any of them—and she went on to say that when the Government decided what to do, they would go ahead and do it.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I hesitate to interrupt the noble Lord. I know how difficult it is when one is following a speech by listening and not by reading it in Hansard, but I think that the noble Lord has misrepresented entirely what I said in that respect.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I hope that by the time the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General responds to the debate he will be able to tell us the timetable for the second stage and whether it will happen before the general election; or, if the Labour Party wins the election, whether it will come in the first Session of the next Parliament.
These are the kinds of issues that not only people in this House and in another place want to know, but also the people of this country want to know what will happen within their Parliament. If I have misunderstood the noble Baroness, I am sure that the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General will give the answer.
It falls to this House to build something anew, something better than we have lost. I believe that we stand at a cusp in the history of parliamentary democracy; we stand at a point where the changes forced on this House by the House of Lords Act 1999 enable this House to begin to rebuild a long-lost political authority to set alongside the moral authority it has always retained. That may not have been the Government's intention, but it will certainly be its effect.
The Leader of the House has argued as much in what I have called the "Jay Doctrine". She has said that the new House would be more legitimate, more effective, more authoritative and more influential on the Government. It is true that the Government have not always listened—as shown by the Home Secretary's deplorable attempts to revive his jury trial Bill—but more and more cross-party votes in this House will make them listen.
I believe that as this House rebuilds its authority it will help to rekindle a spirit of independence in another place. We may see the rebirth of a stronger Parliament, in which this House and the other place, in partnership, can check the overweening ambitions of the executive. A stronger Parliament is, and will remain, a central objective of my party's policy.
We on this side of the House do not fear a stronger Parliament. If a government carries confidence in a free, independent and respected Parliament—one not cowed by patronage or by party whips—then that government is the more authoritative and respected. What destroys respect for any government is backstairs' arm-twisting, trading of favours, a culture of cronyism, the bypassing of Parliament and the handing of power to unelected and unaccountable advisers.
920
That is why I welcome the rejection by the Wakeham Commission of a central contention in the Labour Party's evidence to the Commission—namely, that the powers of your Lordships' House should be reduced. My party would be implacably opposed to a further reduction in the powers of any part of Parliament to control the executive. That is why I welcome the support given by the Wakeham Commission to our contention that use of the powers of patronage by a prime minister should be controlled by an appointments commission, backed by law. I very much welcome the statement given by the Leader of the House in this respect. I hope that the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General will tell us when this appointments commission, backed by law, will be set up. I shall return to that matter in a few moments.
I said that the Wakeham Commission was right to return some questions to Parliament. How then are we to proceed to collect the wisdom of this House and of the other place on the best way of strengthening this House? So far the Government's handling of the issue has been a model of how not to proceed. They have been secretive, partisan, non-consensual and lacking in any long-term vision whatever. Now the noble Baroness asks for consensus.
Constitutional reform should be advanced openly, with cross-party agreement, full public debate and with clear, agreed aims in view. It is high time to bring consideration of the future of this House onto proper lines. The noble Baroness has spoken about talks between parties. I am not opposed to that. But, like the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, I am doubtful whether talks between the parties are the only way forward.
If there were any sense of urgency in the Government's thinking—if perhaps we had been told today when a Bill would be put before Parliament—then perhaps I could see a case to have only those talks. But that is not what we have heard. All that we have heard points towards a Bill in the next Parliament. On that timetable, what possible argument is there for dropping the Government's manifesto commitment to a Joint Committee of both Houses to look at possible ways forward? Is it not time to allow Parliament a say on Parliament's future? I think that it is. It is time for Parliament to enter the dialogue, and that is why we favour the creation of a Joint Committee with broad terms of reference. It would be a productive way to clear ground in a period when the Government do not plan to introduce a Bill. That is why we also reject the view that it should be limited to look only at the parliamentary aspects of implementing change.
We prefer the line in the Labour Party's manifesto—the "holy writ", perhaps penned by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor—that a Joint Committee should,
"conduct a wide-ranging review of possible further change and then bring forward proposals for reform".
That is a sensible way forward, and a Joint Committee should have a wide remit. There is a good case for doing so. There are differences of opinion about how best to strengthen this House and they run across, and within, all parties, including my own. The Front

921
Benches do not have a monopoly of wisdom; nor do we have a right to dictate to Parliament. A Joint Committee would give us the chance to draw out the thread of thinking within both Houses and explore the scope for common ground. It would also give everyone, including the Government, the opportunity to clarify their ideas. I very much hope that we can go down that route.
Perhaps I may refer to the specifics of our own thinking. We have said that we are opposed to a wholly appointed House. We have said that we are likely to want a larger elected element in a reformed House than was proposed by the commission. That would increase the authority of the House. We do not believe that there is anything to fear in election. We should also reexamine the option for a largely elected House put forward by my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern in his authoritative report. His proposals deserve to be at the heart of any discussion about the future.
The way forward cannot be imposed by a Front-Bench deal. The experience of 1968 taught us that. It must be sought through parliamentary dialogue. I hope that the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General will tell us where the Government's ideas now lie in regard to a Joint Committee of both Houses.
Perhaps I may make four positive suggestions on the way forward. There are certain ideas in the report of the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, that could be accepted. Many could be implemented now, with no need for any further delay. First, we could agree that there should be no reduction in the powers of this House vis-à-vis the other place, and no change in Parliament Act rules. We could also review the idea of entrenching the Acts for the future. Do the Government agree that the present power to reject a Bill should remain; and will they allow this House time to debate these important issues?
Secondly, we could agree the case for exploring a way in which this House could amend, as well as reject, secondary legislation. Noble Lords on all sides of the House agree that too much is now done by all governments under unamendable secondary legislation, and the recent battle on the orders for the London election indicated that. I agree with the wise words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, who pointed out with some force yesterday that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, was wrong to challenge the House's right to reject secondary legislation. I agree also with the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, who said that,
"The power to reject statutory instruments is one that must be exercised … cautiously, but there are times when it can and should be used".—[Official Report, 29/2/00; col. 483.]
A power to amend is a valuable safeguard. So will the Government unequivocally endorse the right of this House to reject regulation? Given their majority in another place, will they therefore also consider facilitating discussion on how powers to amend could be taken?
Thirdly, we could proceed to implement a constitutional committee in this House, without direct legislative power but with authority to summon
922
Ministers, to inquire and to report. I sensed that the noble Baroness agreed with that proposal from the commission. As centrifugal forces in our constitution grow, surely a function of the Lords might be to hold some constitutional threads together. There is wide agreement that this House might emerge as a special constitutional authority. When I see noble Lords of the authority and experience of my noble friend Lord Hurd of Westwell, the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, and the noble Lords, Lord Richard and Lord Dahrendorf, I have every confidence that a constitutional committee would soon acquire such authority. Let us consider the example set by the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee of this House. That Select Committee did not exist 10 years ago but it now holds an irreplaceable position in the scheme of things. So will the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General confirm that the Government agree to support the establishment of such a committee?
Fourthly, there is the question of a statutory appointments commission. Again, the noble Baroness indicated that it will happen. But we need to know when it will happen, and whether it is necessary to wait for the whole Bill to be introduced to bring in stage two.
In passing, perhaps I may say how delighted I am to read—also in the newspapers, so it may not be authoritative—that so many of our former hereditary friends and colleagues are apparently to be sent back to this place by the Prime Minister. I had thought that he considered hereditary Peers to be the lowest of the low. I now learn that, so short is New Labour of working Peers, that a group of former Members are being boomeranged back here for another spell of what the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General once acidly called,
"sheltered employment for the undeserving classes".
If that is so, we look forward to those colleagues returning.
My noble friend Lord Kingsland recently published a Bill that would set up a statutory appointments commission. I very much hope that the Government will join with us in seeing that that provision is placed on the statute book.
Some people, including the Prime Minister, hoped that the 1999 Act would strengthen the grip of the executive over this House and weaken the House. They thought that they were clearing a few old leaves from the kitchen garden, and that they could then plant their own neatly clipped seedlings in their place. But nature and politics have a way of running out of control. The task of real reform of this House has not yet started. What we have seen is the political phase, the settling of old scores, the evening up of numbers, the unedifying campaign of scorn for the hereditary principle. All that is now done. We cannot, as some people in Millbank seem to hope, just "rev" it up and replay it, throwing out the elected 92 hereditaries and replacing them with a token elected element, chosen by means of closed lists.

923
The time for playing politics with this House is now past. The crucial task ahead is much greater. It is about constitutional stability and parliamentary rights. It must encompass examination of the whole role, powers and composition of this House, not just a small part of it as did the 1999 Act. It must address the balance between the power of the executive and the power of Parliament in this country.
If the Government can agree to that as the start of a consensus, if the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General, when he comes to reply, will agree that a stronger Parliament is the aim of government policy too, then that will be much the most significant thing to come out of today's debate.
3.57 p.m.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, despite a speech of substance and interest from the Leader of the House—I must confess that she said more than I had expected in regard to the report and the Government's attitude to it—we are debating a report that is cautious rather than radical. Most of the arguments contained in it are familiar to this place; and some difficult decisions have plainly been ducked.
Despite its title, the report is not really a blueprint for the settled future of this House. In many respects, the House of Lords that it envisages would be quite like the House that we know today. The House would still be called the "House of Lords", although the link between this House and the peerage would be broken. In order to bring about change, we should have to evolve into something else; "evolve" is the word used by the commission. We should still be too large a Chamber, especially in the transition period. No doubt we should have "Weatherill Peers Mark 2", or perhaps "Craig of Radley Peers", in due course, to keep alive the hereditary principle after all. We should certainly have the Law Lords, although agreement on the separation of powers is held across all parties in this House. Powerful evidence was put to the commission, notably by the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Weedon.
We should also have the Lords spiritual, even if the spirit is more ecumenical and extends to other religions. They would reside in what would be, to all intents and purposes, a temporal House. Above all, it is clear to all of us that this would be an overwhelmingly unelected Chamber, always capable of being diminished by the government of the day because we lacked accountability.
Most of this is cosy, comfortable and not unattractive to most of us here, including myself. I always enjoy hearing the Law Lords and greatly welcome the presence of the right reverend Prelates, particularly in good numbers. But many outside Parliament will see this as a sadly missed opportunity to reach a new constitutional settlement which would enable this Chamber to strengthen Parliament in its role as a check on the abuse of executive power.
924
Whatever view we take, we should not deny that there is a difficult central dilemma. The terms of reference of the commission begin,
"Having regard to the need to maintain the position of the House of Commons as the pre-eminent chamber of Parliament".
That preamble is indisputable—at least I have not heard it seriously disputed here. No government would want to take away the pre-eminence and primacy of the House of Commons, even if that Chamber would allow it; and no government like to be defeated here.
Until the reform of last year a Labour government, often with justification, would blame defeat on hereditary backwoodsmen. I was not alone in thinking that they would be slower to rush to judgment if they were defeated in a House that they had themselves created, Weatherill amendment and all, but not a bit of it. We know that when they were defeated on the Criminal Justice (Mode of Trial) Bill on 20th January, the Leader of the House, without hesitation, said that the Bill would be reintroduced. There was no suggestion of deferring to this House or seriously considering whether the Bill should be dropped. It was quite like old times, although we were supposed to be living in a different kind of House. We have made some progress by agreement on the Representation of the People Bill and on the Greater London Authority orders, and that is very welcome. But it would be a great mistake to assume that the Government have had a change of heart and that we are now in a new era when the voice of this House is listened to on major issues as never before.
This is not distinctive behaviour. The present Government are no worse than any other, except that they now face a House of Lords that they have themselves reformed. But it follows that no government will ever listen to this House without impatience, believing it to be wrong, as long as it is overwhelmingly nominated. Only a predominantly elected second Chamber will be acknowledged as the wholly legitimate half of a bicameral system that carries the authority that the Government cannot diminish.
Does this mean that the Wakeham commission has been a pointless exercise because it has missed the big deal which is open to it? That is not my view. I cannot approach the report with the enthusiasm of the Leader of the House; there is no song in my heart. Nevertheless, the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, and his colleagues have produced a report of substance and many of its separate recommendations merit serious attention. The fact that it is not the last word on reform of the Lords need not mean that it cannot help us forward.
We on these Benches strongly supported the Government when they called their 1998–99 Bill "stage one" because we believed that without stage one there would be no reform at all. I am open to persuasion that the Wakeham report could lead to a useful stage two as a further, but not final, step towards a more complete and satisfactory reform at a future date. In

925
that sense, I believe that the expression "evolutionary", which was used by the Leader of the House, was appropriate.
There are 132 recommendations in the report and there is merit in a number of them. I take just a few at random: Recommendation 8 on the resolution of differences between the two Houses, and Recommendation 9 on pre-legislative scrutiny. As to Recommendation 21, I agree with the Leader of the House—the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, may have missed the point—that, if these Benches are included, there is unanimity in the belief that there is a role for a constitutional committee. I also believe that there is a role for a committee on human rights. There is an enlarged role for this House in a number of important respects. I also welcome Recommendations 46 and 47 (relating to what we now call the European Union Committee) where the commission supports the call for more resources. The argument throughout the report is for greater resources for the work of our Select Committees, which has been a very strongly expressed view in this House of late.
Your Lordships will be glad to know that I do not intend to go into all of the recommendations. Many of them deserve careful attention as they are sensible and do not depend on further legislation. I see no reason why they should not be considered by the House at an early date. I would expect support for them from all quarters. Let us get on with anything that the Wakeham report recommends which we can reasonably do without delay.
I deal next with the views of the Leader of the House on Chapter 6 which is concerned with,
"Giving a voice to the nations and regions".
Whatever form that may take, and whether or not there is disagreement on the particular point, we on these Benches welcome the emphasis in the report. We are also in broad agreement with a number of the recommendations. I have said that any government will not listen seriously to this House, and will always resent its right to disagree, as long as it is nominated. To set that argument aside, as long as this remains a mainly nominated House there is much to be said for an independent appointments commission with wider powers than the commission shortly to be appointed under stage one reform. Perhaps I may claim some modest parentage for that idea which I first put to Her Majesty's Government four years ago, although it was laughed out of court by the Government and Opposition Front Benches at that time. Minds move, and I am always glad when they move in my direction.
Turning to the case for the appointments commission, it is intolerable, and quite contrary to any accepted constitutional principle, that the Prime Minister of the day should be able to determine as a result of patronage the political composition of this House. There is no point in saying that it was ever thus if we are considering what the role of this House should be in modern times and what it should be in future. During 18 years in government, after 1979 Conservative Prime Ministers used their patronage to put 173 Conservative Peers into a House that was
926
already overwhelmingly Conservative. It was wholly out of line with the balance of opinion in the country. The under-represented opposition parties had 123 new Peers. During less than three years of Labour government, Tony Blair has put 83 new Labour Peers into the House, with 59 from the opposition parties.
I believe that the huge increase in Labour Peers in the past three years can at least be justified on the ground that in the Tory years Labour was starved of its entitlement. I have no complaint about that. The Government also adopted the reasonable aim of broad parity in numbers with Conservatives in the interim House, but the House will be aware that the Prime Minister has been selective in implementing his commitment to political balance. Virtually no progress has been made to achieve political balance in so far as it affects these Benches. As the price of fulfilling their own pledge on proportionality, the Government have asked for a pledge of good behaviour on our part in return. Some might render that as seats for votes, and part of good old-fashioned politics, particularly when it comes to squeezing a third party. But others might argue that it is a manipulation of the system inconsistent with respect for this House and for parliamentary government.
I welcome the proposal for an independent appointments commission charged, among other things, with ensuring the overall balance between political parties in this House by reference to votes cast for each party at the previous general election.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, if I may stop the noble Lord, when the Government made him this offer, did they explain to the noble Lord what they meant by "good behaviour"?
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, I do not think that I want to enter into the privacy of those bilateral discussions. The noble Lord and the House can draw their own conclusions. Indeed, I made it as plain as I could within parliamentary language.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, can the noble Lord help us further by saying by whom these points were made?
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, I could indeed do that. I have a piece of paper in my pocket now which I could read out to the House. It might be something regarded in a court of law as an affidavit. However, I think that it is in the interests of the Government Front Bench that I do not do so.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, I undertake to show it to the noble Baroness the Leader of the House and, if she agrees, to arrange to put it in the Library of the House.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, has the noble Lord not heard of the freedom of information movement? Surely we should all share in this knowledge.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, I understand that the Government's proposals restrict

927
the freedom of information in a way that many of us would hope for. On this occasion, I have been considerate towards the Government Benches, if they only recognised it.
I shall say no more about the appointments commission except that it makes good sense. It will help to rebalance the House after each election. My only doubt is whether it is wise and in keeping with the hardheaded nature of the report to expect the nominations of party representatives, party nominations, in this House to be chosen by the commission. Although it is attractive outside the House, it is unrealistic to believe that those who are not members of a party should play any part in choosing who should come here.
One of the proposals could be implemented without delay. I hope that in the further discussions which may take place there will be a proposal to turn the present stage one appointments commission into an appointments commission on the lines of that proposed by the Wakeham report. There is no reason why that should not be done at once.
If there is to be a comparable debate in another place within the next few weeks, and this side of Easter, there is no reason why a Joint Committee of both Houses cannot be set up by the end of May, or soon after, and begin meeting before the Summer Recess. Its terms of reference cannot be limited to the recommendations of the Wakeham commission although no doubt the report will provide a useful agenda. I assume that the terms of reference and the composition of the Joint Committee are matters to be settled by agreement between the parties. We shall play our part in that after consultation with the Cross Benches in this House.
However, I am somewhat confused, as I understood was the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, by the noble Baroness's suggestion that there would be another form of bilateral or multiparty discussion, not with a view to setting up the Joint Committee but to agree on a joint view of some of these issues in advance of the commission being established. If that is the proposal, I hope that the Attorney-General will explain it more fully when he concludes the debate. It is not a proposal we have previously had. Without rejecting it out of hand until we hear the details, we must look forward to the appointment at an early date of the Joint Committee.
I am sorry to disappoint the noble Baroness the Leader of the House, but I at least remain deeply sceptical about the likelihood of any further significant Lords reform requiring legislation within the foreseeable future. But I should be happy to be proved wrong.
4.14 p.m.
Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, and the other members of his Royal Commission on their comprehensive and readable report. As they so rightly say in their envoi, the Royal Commission was not set a simple question and the report does not provide a simple answer. There are several key points it did not
928
fully resolve: for example, the elected element: the future for life Peers; and the name for the new second Chamber; nor do I think that the independent strength proposed in the report will be adequate, as I shall explain in a moment.
Today's debate will not solve the more complex issues such as the model for election, but I hope that the Government will seek to give a clear lead in searching for consensus on many of the issues. It should be an aim to get early agreement on a number of the specific recommendations in the Royal Commission's report.
The House and the Joint Committee will then be able to concentrate on the more complex and controversial issues, knowing how much of a foundation has already been established across the House. Let me touch on a few of the points on which it might be possible to achieve agreement. These are my own thoughts. I do not speak on behalf of others on these Benches.
Recommendations which seek to retain or strengthen the existing arrangements of your Lordships' House seem a good first place to look for agreement. In my list I include the recommendations which seek to protect the constitution, the existing role of the Law Lords and their judicial functions. To these I would add the recommendations that the second Chamber should seek to continue the House of Lords' tradition of open procedures and self-regulation, thus preserving the essential character of what exists at present.
The House has lived through a traumatic period. I sense at times that enough is enough if we are not to lose the special features of this Chamber which also distinguish it from another place. I welcome the view—I think that it is shared on all sides of the House—that this place does not want to end up as a mirror image of the other place. The Royal Commission believes that the new Chamber must be "distinctively different" from the other place.
With so much else in flux there will be temptations, even an anti-traditionalist view, that this place must be modernised and change its ways and manner of working. I fervently hope not. Whether it is the style of introduction, assuming that there will still be such a ceremony, or the modes of address, or adherence to the Companion rules and to Standing Orders, I hope that your Lordships could agree that the new House should set about its business much as it does now. The Royal Commission makes this point succinctly in Recommendation 68. It states that the House,
"should preserve the relatively non-polemical style of the present House of Lords".
The intention of the Royal Commission that the 92 hereditaries should all be axed together, at a time when there is a large, new, elected intake will make it difficult to fill Deputy Speakers' lists and the Select Committees and other committees of the House where experience is called for. The hereditaries' collective knowledge of the workings of this place will take time to replace.

929
Even membership over 15 years may not seem long enough. I have been here nearly nine years and there is still much for me to learn, even with the additional push of being the Convenor of the Cross-Bench Peers to hasten my grasp of all the ways of this House. There is a world of difference between cutting back to the 92 hereditaries, as happened last November, and replacing them all suddenly with a new intake. Most of the 92 who remain are regular participants in the workings of your Lordships' House. An abrupt departure could destroy many of the best features of the present House. Perhaps if a number of the present and former hereditary Peers were recycled by renewed appointment, this problem would not be so great.
The Royal Commission proposes that the independents (less the Law Lords) should be 20 per cent of the membership. In a total Chamber of 550, that would be 25 fewer than the current Cross-Bench strength without the Law Lords. The Royal Commission has stressed the value of non-political independent Members because of their special knowledge and expertise, even if their attendance were only part-time. But at present, committee work does not dovetail well with the programmes of those who are also in full or near full-time employment.
I do not favour Members being paid salaries, which would detract from the sense that attendance is a duty and not a response to payment. It would also equate this House perhaps too much with the other place. For those reasons, I do not believe that 20 per cent of a 550-Member House will adequately ensure the strong, active, independent element which is required. If the concept of a strong, active independent element is to mean anything, proper representation on all committees is essential.
Cross-Benchers, including the 30 hereditary Peers, fill the existing allocation of Deputy Speaker and committee positions. If the Royal Commission's recommendations on additional Select Committees are taken up, I anticipate that there will be a need for more than 20 per cent to ensure adequate independent representation. Recommendation 91 would allow for such adjustments; that is, if the very strong, entrenched independent appointments commission, as proposed by the Royal Commission, were to be accepted. I hope that we shall have all-party agreement to that very soon.
I welcome the Royal Commission's proposals for additional Select Committees. In principle, they are very sound and could add to the respect and authority of the new House. But there are difficulties which will have to be addressed. Resources, both in terms of rooms and Clerks, must be found, as well as appropriately qualified Members willing and able to make a considerable number of hours available each week for committee work.
The relevant House authorities, with the strong encouragement of the noble Baroness the Leader of the House, should be tasked to make proposals of what more must be done to provide resources and high quality support for such committees.
930
What future should there be for the Salisbury Convention? Should it remain unchanged? The Royal Commission, broadly, says, "Yes". I believe that a case can be made to reserve it for, say, only the first two or three Sessions of each new Parliament.
The original driving rationale was to prevent an inbuilt majority in this place obstructing the manifesto intentions of a new democratically elected government. If there has been a major swing and change of party in government, it may take the independent appointments commission two or three years to readjust the balance of membership in this House. But, thereafter, there should be no risk of a single opposition party majority. The House should be free to deal with its business as much as possible without any sense of convention restraint. Similar considerations might be applied to statutory instruments.
I welcome the Royal Commission's recommendation on the role for the Convenor of the Cross-Benchers in its independent appointments commission. Apart from any party members who decide to leave their Benches and become independent—and I hope that there will be no bar to such changes of allegiance—every new independent Member will have been selected by the appointments commission.
Ensuring that the independents have a wide range of backgrounds and all the other characteristics favoured by the Royal Commission is only a part of the process of identifying what skills are required. The actual attendance and difficulties existing independent Members have—or may have—in regular attendance should also be considered by the appointments commission as it looks for new Members. The Convenor is well placed to provide such advice. The Royal Commission's arrangement to involve the Convenor should be adopted for the interim appointments commission, which is in the process of being set up.
The Royal Commission was unable to make a unanimous recommendation about the future for life Peers. I support its majority view that existing life Peers should remain for life, with an option to retire. However, Recommendation 103, that Life Peers created following the date of the publication of the Royal Commission report,
"should be deemed to have been appointed to the reformed second chamber for a period totalling 15 years from the award of their life peerage",
may involve retrospective legislation and is therefore unsatisfactory, even if only a few individuals might be caught in this way. I hope that tonight the Government will be able to make their views clear on the future for existing life Peers and those who will be created after the publication of the commission's report.
Finally, I was disappointed that the Royal Commission was unable to recommend a name for the new Chamber, or the title by which Members would be known. I do not believe the answer is that it should be left to "evolve". It certainly will not evolve unless

931
discussed. My choice would be to retain the existing name, "House of Lords". Despite changes in composition over the centuries, the name has stood the test of time. It is familiar across the world.
Retaining it would chime with the view that the best features of your Lordships' House should be retained. If so, Members might be known as Lords in Parliament, with "LP" after their names. Outside the House, unless they were hereditary or life Peers, they would be known as Mr, Mrs, Dr, Professor or whatever their appropriate title. The comparison with the use in the other place of "honourable Member" and "right honourable Member" only within the Chamber and not outside could be drawn. In debates in this Chamber, references to the honourable Lord, Lord X, or the right honourable Lady, Lady Y, and the existing form for those who are Peers, could be used. Other phrases such as right reverend Prelate, noble and learned and even, sparing my blushes, noble and gallant, should also continue in use. Such courtesies help to engender an air of mutual respect and good manners across the Floor of the House and contribute to the self-regulatory way in which the House goes about its work.
I hope that the cool forces of modernism will not consign such phrases to the dustbin. They all contribute to the atmosphere and ethos of the finest second Chamber of any Parliament in the world. The nation and all Members of the future second Chamber should be proud to continue with the present name. I hope that there can be agreement on that.
4.28 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Durham: My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate from these Benches. The Church of England, like others, is inevitably digesting the Wakeham commission's report. What I have to say is to some extent provisional. It is good that we have been given this relatively early opportunity to take stock and to get a steer on the Government's mind.
The report deserved a better press than it received immediately following its publication. The issues it addresses are fundamental to the health of our democracy. On many, although not all, of these issues, its conclusions and recommendations are right and provide a good basis for evolutionary change.
It is important to start from first principles. However, the key is whether the proposals will enable Parliament to serve the people better. The report is right to say that a reformed second Chamber should complement the House of Commons. It should not seek to challenge that House's democratic primacy. None the less, the second Chamber should not be a mere cipher. It must have powers to amend legislation, to force reconsideration and to hold the Government effectively to account. In a number of senses, the role of the second Chamber is to provide a different and yet complementary system of representation to that provided by the House of Commons. No doubt, even from these Benches, others will seek to develop that in the course of the debate.
932
However, given that understanding, we on these Benches welcome the commission's proposal for a part-elected but mainly appointed House. We also welcome the proposed separation of the honours system from membership of the House and the proposal to reduce substantially the Prime Minister's patronage through the establishment of an independent appointments commission.
The report is also right in recognising that the spiritual and religious aspects of our society should be reflected appropriately in the composition of the new Chamber. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, who gave us encouragement to think positively on this issue. We make that assertion not on the basis of history or of constitutional understanding, although both would support such a claim, but on the fact that any Chamber which purports truly to represent contemporary society must not and cannot ignore that dimension. We stand fully alongside the distinguished evidence made to the commission by the Chief Rabbi on this point.
In our own evidence, we agreed that the time had come to extend the contribution made by spiritual leaders of the Church of England to include leaders of other Churches and, indeed, of other faiths. Therefore, we welcome the commission's espousal of this point and we look forward to working with our faith partners in making it a reality.
We are grateful for the report's recognition of the contribution made to this House from these Benches. Bishops have been in the House of Lords since medieval times and the beginnings of parliamentary institutions. Contrary to what some assume, Henry VIII did not put us here. However, the report falls into a major trap in describing that contribution as having been made by Bishops as representatives of the Church of England. We do not see ourselves as representatives of a sectional institutional interest; rather, we have been and are in this House because of the position we hold in relation to the whole community in the dioceses we serve.
In speaking in chapter 15 of the representation of religious faiths, the commission uses, no doubt, a convenient shorthand but risks offering a model for the future which would reduce the contribution of spiritual leaders to the representatives of particular religious institutions. That is a model which my colleagues and I would resist vigorously. The presence of Bishops in Parliament can point to an abiding validity of the Christian tradition to public doctrine and ethical norms. It is the national ministry of the Church of England "by law established" that makes this role possible. Through the dioceses and parishes, through a small army of clergy and licensed lay ministers, through church schools and chaplaincies to many kinds of institutions, the Church of England has a vast constituency of pastoral contact which extends far beyond the core of committed churchgoers. The expression "national church" is not an anachronism.
With regard to these Benches, there is also the danger that what the commission has given with one hand, it has taken away with the other. I refer to the

933
proposed reduction in the number of Church of England Bishops in your Lordships' House from 26 to 16. We appreciate that the commission and the Government naturally will be concerned to ensure a proportionate representation of Bishops—proportionate, that is, to the reduced size of the House as a whole. However, given the diocesan, national and, in the case of the two Archbishops, international responsibilities, of those on these Benches, we are gravely concerned that a reduction to 16 will prevent us making an effective contribution to the work of the reformed Chamber.
Conversely, if Bishops are to make such a contribution—and in an episcopally led Church many will argue that they should continue to do so—their involvement in their diocese and wider community (one of the key contributions that we bring to this Chamber) will be unhelpfully curtailed.
In paragraph 15.27 of its report, the commission recognises that,
"our recommendations will create considerable difficulties for the Church of England".
It goes on to recommend that the Church should itself review the options for filling the places allotted to us. We have already begun that process, although it is too soon for me to report the outcome. However, I would not want your Lordships to underestimate the difficulties that we face, the potential detrimental impact on the traditional role of a diocesan Bishop or the contribution that we are able to make in this place.
I emphasise that our concerns are not about the preservation of vested interest or privilege; they reflect our wish to give the most effective parliamentary service that we can to the nation. Other concerns, which I can mention only in passing but which I know we share with our ecumenical partners, focus on the report's use of baptismal membership as the basis for allocating seats and on the effect of the suggested 15-year rule.
In mentioning some of our concerns about the Royal Commission's report, I do not want to undermine our broad support for many of its conclusions and recommendations. The noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, and his colleagues are to be congratulated on the depth as well as on the speed of their work. It is indeed good that the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, is to speak next, and we look forward with great anticipation to what he has to say. In our judgment, the report of the commission provides a generally sound basis on which dialogue about reform can be developed. We look to play our full part in that. Indeed, we would hope to be represented on any committee of this House or Joint Committee with another place which considers these matters further.
Our aim is not to secure representation of a vested interest at any price; rather, it is to ensure that the evolution of the second Chamber is, by its very constitution, a servant of the people. The Christian contribution to the basis of our society is widely recognised and it is important that it is represented here as effectively as it is in the local communities that we seek to serve.
4.38 p.m.
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, it was a great honour and a privilege to be invited to chair the Royal Commission on the reform of your Lordships' House. It turned out to be both interesting and enjoyable but it was also, as I am sure your Lordships will realise, a great responsibility. The process of reflection and analysis which we went through reinforced my original view that reform of your Lordships' House was a matter of very great importance.
Of course, we were not operating in a vacuum. One of the most notable features of our public consultation exercise was the widespread support for the work of the House of Lords and many of the characteristics of its Members. We were in the fortunate position of being able to build on the best traditions of your Lordships' House in drawing up a blueprint for the future.
I said that it turned out to be an interesting and enjoyable task. That was very much due to the qualities and personalities of my fellow commissioners. I am glad that so many of them are here this afternoon and speaking in this debate. Perhaps the most important point I can make about my fellow commissioners is that they were, collectively, exactly the people one would choose if one wanted to find a politically realistic and workable solution to a complex political and constitutional problem. We worked well together as a team. Because of that we went to considerable efforts to produce an agreed report and one which we could all wholeheartedly sign. We travelled a long journey to reach that point and it was not always easy.
We could not have reached agreement without everyone being prepared to reconsider their initial positions. That would not have been possible without the development of trust, confidence, liking and respect. All the members of the commission contributed to that. I should like formally to record my own appreciation and thanks to my fellow commissioners and I am sure that your Lordships would wish to be associated with that.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, I turn now to some of the misconceptions that seem to have arisen since the publication of the report. I want to stress that our report is not anti-democratic. Just because the United Kingdom is a major democracy, it does not follow that the reformed Chamber should be largely, if not wholly, elected. Such arguments are, with respect, wrong and dangerous. It is because members of the Royal Commission support parliamentary democracy that we recommended a largely appointed House. The reformed Chamber should not ultimately be able to frustrate the will of the electorate as expressed in general elections. They confirm a government in power, or result in power being transferred to others. They give governments a mandate to govern and put them in a position to implement their manifesto commitments. I simply do not believe that it would he wise to create an institution with a democratic

935
mandate which could come to rival that conferred on the Government by the results of a general election. Whatever rules of pre-eminence one might write in, the political reality is that such an institution could very easily come into conflict with the Government and with the other place.
A serious second risk is that because elections can in reality only be won by organised political parties, a wholly or largely elected second Chamber would be no more than a clone of the other place. That would be in no one's interest. It would not add value to the parliamentary process. It would risk becoming a rubber stamp for government or an opportunity for the Opposition to engage in spoiling tactics.
Moreover—and this is the key point—by appearing to rely on its democratic mandate to justify its opposition to whatever the Government or Members of the other place want it to do, a wholly or largely elected Chamber would, in my view, be doomed to failure. In any trial of electoral strength, the other place would be bound to win. Even those who argue for a wholly or largely elected Chamber accept and make provision for that.
The Royal Commission's answer to that conundrum is to say that when the reformed second Chamber challenges the Government and the other place, as we believe that it should continue to do, it should do so by strength of argument rather than relying on an electoral mandate. We set out in paragraph 10.6 of our report a list of the alternative sources of authority on which a reformed second Chamber could draw. They are sufficient to ensure that the House will continue to be taken seriously.
A reformed Chamber, constituted in the way that we proposed, would add real value. That is much better than creating a pale and inevitably junior replica of the other place. The second Chamber should be distinct from the other place and operate in a way which is complementary to it, thus improving the ability of Parliament as a whole to hold the Government to account. That trilateral relationship is central to the long-term health of parliamentary democracy in this country.
I turn now to another concern which has been expressed. Our report emphatically does not denigrate the role of the political parties or the increasingly professional politicians who serve those parties in another place. They represent, and are equipped to carry out, the basic political choices of the British electorate. Far from criticising them, our report seeks rather to protect their position. We have gone to some trouble to ensure that the reformed second Chamber could not challenge the decisive political role of the other place and that individual Members of the reformed Chamber could not become electoral rivals to constituency Members of another place. In suggesting that the reformed House should be more broadly representative of British society, we are seeking a complementary basis of representation, not implicitly criticising Members of the other place.
936
Some have argued that our report represents an acknowledgement of the failings of democracy. That misses the whole point of our report as it deals only with one Chamber of a bicameral Parliament. In considering our recommendations your Lordships need to consider the operation of Parliament as a whole. We are not saying that Parliament should be largely appointed. We are arguing that, given the existing role and composition of the other place, with which we have no quarrel, the second Chamber should be largely appointed so that it can bring a distinctive and complementary perspective to bear on the consideration of proposed legislation and public policy.
There was initially some confusion over the fact that we put forward three possible models of composition for consideration. It was suggested that we were split or that somehow we had let the Government off the hook. The fact is that the commission's broad overall conclusions on composition, as set out in Chapter 11, are unanimous. Most of the specific practical recommendations on composition in Chapter 12 are also unanimous. We all believe that the reformed Chamber should be largely appointed by a totally independent appointments commission and include a fixed minimum proportion of Cross-Benchers; that the overall political balance should be set by reference to general election results; that there should be a significant minority of regional Members chosen in a way which reflects the balance of political opinion within each region; that the choice should be made in the margins of another electoral contest, using a proportional and party-based electoral system; and that directly appointed and regional Members should all serve terms equivalent to three parliamentary cycles, subject to the possibility of reappointment, and should not be eligible to be elected as Members of the other place for 10 years after leaving this House.
The three models were all variations on one aspect of this broad overall conclusion. By offering options we provided an element of flexibility which made it easier for the Government to announce—within hours of the publication of our report and confirmed by the noble Baroness the Leader of the House today—that they had accepted the principle that the reformed Chamber should have a minority of elected regional Members.
However, the real test of our report is whether its recommendations will be implemented. There is a proposal that some of the procedural suggestions—we have heard about that in one or two places and in the debate this afternoon—in the report should be implemented quickly and need not wait for decisions about some of the other recommendations. The establishment of a constitutional committee is a case in point.
I welcome the wide degree of support for the proposal. But I caution against cherry picking. Our recommendations are coherent and interrelated and cannot easily be separated. It would odd for this House to establish a constitutional committee and then find that a reformed House was unlikely to contain Members with the relevant skills, knowledge and

937
experience. My advice would therefore be to defer action on individual proposals of this kind until there is at least some measure of agreement on the nature of the second stage reform of your Lordships' House. Some such broad measure of agreement is obviously highly desirable in any event before it would be sensible to establish a Joint Committee to consider the parliamentary aspects of whatever is proposed.
I would not expect any party to sign up to all the 132 recommendations in the Royal Commission's report. Many of the detailed issues will, very properly, need to be considered with great care as the necessary legislation is debated. However, we need to offer the Joint Committee a point of departure, especially on the composition of the reformed Chamber.
My proposal is that the House should indicate its readiness as soon as possible to accept in principle the Royal Commission's broad overall conclusions on composition, as expressed in Chapter 11 of the report. This would leave the specific practical points dealt with in Chapter 12, including the choice among the three models of composition, to be resolved as the legislation is debated.
This proposal offers a fair balance between the interests of all concerned. There will be opportunities to revisit all the key judgments in this report and to debate all the detailed points at the time any legislation goes through. I believe that my suggestion would help to maintain the momentum towards a successful long-term reform of your Lordships' House. As we said in our report, one of the major risks is that if the interested parties hold out for what they would ideally like, the opportunity to achieve such reform may pass for another generation, perhaps another century. The prize of an authoritative, reinvigorated second Chamber is so great that, in my view, it would be wrong to delay.
4.51 p.m.
Baroness Dean of Thornton-Ie-Fylde: My Lords, I, too, was honoured to be a member of the Royal Commission, a sense that I know I share with my fellow members of the commission. I am not sure that we all understood either the enormity or the complexity of the task that faced us in the very short time-scale that we had. We recognised very early on that we had differing views and different approaches to the issues before us. However, we were unanimous in relation to the fact that this was perhaps a once-in-a-generation, or more, opportunity to reform the House of Lords. If reform did not result, then it would be possibly many years before there would be another opportunity for such a review. We did not want a report which would be put on the shelf with so many others, gathering dust and making no real contribution to the reform that this House has called for.
Along with the written submissions that we received, the interviews that took place and the public meetings, there were very many private meetings of the commission members at which the issues were analysed, debated and our own individual views tested
938
by each other. Many of those exchanges were not easy discussions. I believe it is a credit to my fellow commissioners that we were able to build sufficient respect for the integrity of each other's views and, on occasion, to accept the logic of the opposing argument and, indeed, stand down from our own perhaps very strong view.
With its 132 recommendations, I suggest that it is an overwhelmingly unanimous report. Many of us who served on the commission were indeed pleasantly surprised at the degree of unanimity at the conclusion of the process. That could not have been achieved without the experienced guide of our chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham. I christened him our "pathfinder". There were many occasions when we witnessed his guile, timing and cunning approach to the issue of getting the business done. I pay credit to him and I know that my colleagues on the commission, many of whom are listening to the debate in this Chamber this afternoon, would wish to join me in giving him that credit.
Many people have said that the report is well written—I believe it is—and that the arguments are well analysed. Much of the credit for that must go to the members of our secretariat, who provided us with the very best traditions of good Civil Service support. They played a major part in the end product that your Lordships have before you.
Of course, the composition of the House was a subject of most interest to most people. It has probably been the topic which has already taken up the most time in our debate this afternoon. The commission's work did not begin there. Previous attempts at reform of the second Chamber had done just that. Instead, we began our work by considering what the role of the second Chamber should be, not merely in the context of the constitutional changes taking place, the full impact of which we have not yet seen, in my view, but also in relation to the remit set out in the White Paper itself. Then we moved on to consider what powers would be necessary to enable that role to be fulfilled. Both of those issues are covered in Chapter 3 and other chapters of the report.
We should not underestimate the role of this House, which is underpinned in the recommendations of this report, in the checks and balances in a democracy, in holding government to account and making government think again no matter how uncomfortable that sometimes is. This House has done that over the years. The report that we are debating today protects that role. Indeed, the uncomfortable decisions of this House with which this Government and previous governments have been faced will in fact not disappear as a result of this report. It will underpin that situation in many respects.
After we looked at the role and powers of the House, we then moved to its composition. Everybody was ready to talk about composition—everyone that we met and talked to at those 21 public meetings and, indeed, in the roughly 1,600 pieces of evidence that we received. The noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, has rightly covered the composition of the House in some detail.

939
I would like to touch on one or two areas relating to election, because it is true that election of Members and the varying degrees of that election featured in many of the submissions that we received.
Very few supported a wholly elected Chamber. The percentages varied considerably. Equally, there was a widely held view that an independent element within the second Chamber was an important aspect of the role of the second Chamber in complementing democratic government in our country. At the same time, it came across that the public did not want political parties controlling the second Chamber. Quite often, we had a genuinely sincere submission that on the one hand the House should have elected Members within it but, on the other hand, the political parties should not play any particular role in that election process. That is a conundrum.
The White Paper made it clear that the second Chamber must not be a clone or a rival of the House of Commons. That is true. In my view, that would be a recipe for gridlock. Much of the evidence before us supported that view. It was put forward to us at our public meetings and confirmed that the pre-eminence of the House of Commons within our own democracy was one that people expected to remain. I suggest that those who called for a wholly or a substantially elected second Chamber run the risk of creating gridlock.
All my life I have stood for election; that is, until I was made a Member of this House. In an election process, no matter what kind of an election process in which you are involved, you have a platform. You ask people to support you and, when you are elected, you are accountable. If I were elected, I would not accept that someone else elected to a different Chamber would have the right to say that their position was more democratic and more legitimate than mine. Therein lies the recipe for gridlock.
I know, too, that there are colleagues on this side of the House, and in other parts of the House and outside, who say that the report has ducked the real issue; that the real issue is to have a clean, clear policy of either election or appointment. I do not accept that argument and I suggest that many members of the public do not accept it either. It is possible to work within a system as put forward in the report of elected and appointed elements within the House.
Also, we have waited nearly 100 years to reform this Chamber. If one adopts an all-or-nothing approach, I rather suspect that we may end up with nothing. In my view, that would not serve the purpose for which the commission was established.
I turn to the question of present life Peers remaining for the rest of their lives, if they choose to do so. The report provides for retirement for those Members of the House who choose to retire. We tried to tackle every point which was raised. The work that we did in relation to this matter revealed that, if the present life Peers remained for the rest of their lives, by the year 2020 approximately 45 of those life Peers would remain. So with that process of evolution, we should arrive at a completely new Chamber.
940
I believe in the evolutionary approach. Equally, I believe that we should not underestimate the impact of the recommendations of the report. For example, the appointments commission will be charged with the responsibility of not only keeping the political balance but also the diversity of characteristics of the Members of this House to ensure that they fulfil the role attributed to the House.
The appointments commission will be bound to ensure that 30 per cent of the Members of the second Chamber are women. The appointments commission will have to account for that in its annual report. There should also be representation of ethnic minority groups in the Chamber, which should be at least proportionate to their presence in our community as a whole.
Those are not politically correct recommendations. Although this House has changed, and we can observe around us much of that change, it is still a long way from meeting Recommendation 1 of the Royal Commission's report that it should be broadly representative of the community which forms the United Kingdom today. That would be a major step forward.
I conclude by dealing with the issue of resources. Having worked for the past 10 or 11 months with the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, and having published our unanimous report, I hesitate to enter a voice of dissent on something he said. He talked about cherry-picking. In general terms, I agree with that. But there are some areas which could be dealt with before the work of any Joint Committee or legislation and which does not need legislation. I ask my noble friend the Leader of the House to consider the question of resources for the Members of this House.
In my view, Members are asked to carry out an almost impossible task with very few resources, whether they are Members like myself on the Back-Benches or indeed those on the Front Benches of the opposition parties. That issue cannot wait and it should be looked at immediately. It should be recognised that we are probably the least-resourced House of Parliament anywhere in the world for the work that we do. I am referring not only to individual Members but also to the work of the committees. I was particularly struck by the respect in which the work of those committees—the European committees, the specialist committees, the Science and Technology Committee—is held outside this House and, indeed, in Brussels. Therefore, those committees deserve the resources which are necessary to enable them to do their job to the full.
The noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, said that the real test will be whether the recommendations of the report are implemented. That is absolutely true. If we wait for the ideal to come along, I rather suspect that it never will. I welcome the clear statement made at the beginning of the debate by my noble friend the Leader of the House. None of us wants this report to be kicked into the long grass.
The Royal Commission was conscious of the poor record that we have, as a nation, in carrying forward the reforms which several commissions have suggested

941
over the past 100 years. The only way in which to make progress is to enable the House to evolve and continually to review where we are. It may well be that although the majority view within the report is that there should be a minority of people elected to this Chamber, that number can grow step by step. But we shall find out whether that is necessary from experience and as our constitutional settlement within our country matures and grows and we see the outcome.
5.5 p.m.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, we are fortunate today in having before us a report which is eminently readable, well argued and logically developed and which contains a number of positive and constructive proposals. However, it is necessary to remind ourselves that it is a report prepared within very severe constraints. The first constraint is the maintenance of the pre-eminence of the other Chamber; the second constraint is the existing constitutional settlement.
I believe that within those constraints the report has gone about as far as it could. But it raises the question of whether this is the end of the road. I feel that it clearly cannot be. The noble Baroness the Leader of the House, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, and my noble friend Lord Rodgers all referred to the evolutionary process. We should regard this second stage as a step in the evolutionary process but acknowledge that at some future stage we may well wish to look at the whole institution of Parliament, not just one Chamber in a bicameral situation. We may wish to look also at the relationship of the executive with Parliament.
There are many models in the rest of the world, as the report clearly shows, which adopt a different way of doing things. Under the terms of reference of the Royal Commission, its members were unable to let their minds wander too far. But the extent to which their minds have wandered has been most constructive and productive. The best contribution individual speakers such as myself can make is perhaps to ask one or two questions about certain aspects of the report, having put it in the context that this is an evolutionary process.
I agree with the proposal that there should be an extension of the activities of this House in constitutional matters and in human rights matters. However, because of the constraints, the commission has been unable to recommend any extension of powers in that regard. That may well come at a later stage but at least let us start tackling those problems.
It is recommended also that we should review treaties. Again, I presume that we should prepare reports on treaties and that it would then be for the other place and the Government to decide whether to take any notice of our views. Such issues should be considered at a subsequent stage.
The report basically divides itself into consideration of the functions of the House and the composition of the House. As to the functions, I believe that the
942
emphasis which the commission places on the present main task of this House—to review and scrutinise legislation—is absolutely right. I like its phrase that,
"it is our main task to make the other place think again".
We must continue to do that with all the vigour at our disposal.
Perhaps the most innovative aspects of the report relate to composition. I believe a consensus exists that there should be a strengthened appointments commission. I say "strengthened" because it is proposed that it should be somewhat stronger than the appointments commission which the Government have in mind in relation to stage one. But I agree with my noble friend Lord Rodgers that there is some doubt about whether the appointments commission should select, as opposed to appoint, the political Members of a reformed House.
It could lead to considerable difficulty if Members selected and appointed by the commission were not acceptable to their party in the House. The members of the Royal Commission were conscious of such a possibility. On page 142, the report states:
"We recognise that ultimately the parties have the right to offer the party whip to, or withhold it from, individual members of the second chamber".
To my mind, that conjures up an extraordinary situation in which a number of political appointees who would not take the Whip from their parties could join the House. Would we have two kinds of Conservative, Labour or Liberal Democrat Members—those appointed by the appointments commission who were acceptable to the parties in the House and those who were not?
I cannot see that working. The sensible course, once the appointments commission has laid down the criteria, numbers and timing of appointments, would be for the actual proposal to come from the political parties, with the appointments commission of course vetting the personalities put forward.
Lord Hurd of Westwell: My Lords, I am having some difficulty following the noble Lord. I should be grateful if he could clarify a point. In all parties, certainly in the two main parties and possibly in the Liberal Democrat Party, there are distinguished people who might well be an ornament and of great use to a second Chamber but who, for one reason or another—or perhaps only temporarily—are at odds with the party leadership on an issue. Is the noble Lord saying that the appointments commission should not be able to select such people simply because they are temporarily at odds with the leadership of their own party?
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I do not believe that the appointments commission should make the decision about who would be considered to join the reformed Chamber on a political basis. That should be for the parties to propose. If, in due course, those selected in that way—as at present—were to express different opinions, so be it. That is the normal course of democracy. But I see difficulties in the appointments

943
commission actually selecting, as opposed to appointing, Members of this House belonging to the political parties. That, at any rate, is the view I should like to express.
When it comes to the election of the regional representatives, one might ask a few questions. First, I believe that the electorate is growing rather tired of the number of elections in which it has to take part. I cannot see that an election for a minority of a second Chamber, which is basically an advisory Chamber, would excite a great deal of popular interest. If we went ahead with such a proposal and the turn-out at the polls was extremely low, it would be an unfortunate basis on which to start the reformed House.
Secondly, bearing in mind that this is a step in an evolutionary process, I cannot see why the arguments so eloquently advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, for the nomination of the bulk of the Members of the reformed House do not apply equally to the regional Members. For example, there could be regional appointment commissions which would take account of party nominations and collect proposals for independent nominations representing regional opinion which could be put forward in the overall context of the membership of the House.
I pose such questions on the assumption that this is an evolutionary step and that at some later date, when we have reviewed the parliamentary institution in its totality, we may well want to introduce an electoral element, either in whole or in part, to this House. But I believe that the House would be more cohesive—a quality to which the commission attaches a great deal of importance—if, at this stage, all Members were appointed on an objective basis and we reserved the option to review the situation in a wider context at a later date.
5.15 p.m.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, there is at least one matter on which I can agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ezra. We both seem to agree that it would have been more sensible for any reform of Parliament to have begun with another place rather than here and to have set reform in that context. Unfortunately, as I believe the noble Lord acknowledged by implication, such an avenue of proceeding is not open to us. Therefore, we must make do with the rather restricted attack on the existing weaknesses of Parliament which the Government have allowed us. That is, in all conscience, narrow enough.
This will be an extremely long, although interesting, debate. I suspect that an exhaustive analysis of my noble friend's report would not endear me to your Lordships. Therefore, what I say is bound to be a little impressionistic. I apologise for any imprecision which may arise from that.
I strongly agree with a great deal of what my noble friend has produced. Although there is much I could list in that respect, I believe that my noble friend will accept that any dissent I express during the course of my remarks does not in any way undermine the
944
admiration I have for what he and his colleagues have produced and, indeed, for many of the extremely helpful and illuminating comments they have made.
Nevertheless, I should be less than frank if I did not say that there at least parts of the report with which I feel compelled to quibble. I applaud the fact that the commission began by asking itself what was the function of your Lordships' House. That seems entirely sensible for obvious reasons. As I have ventured to suggest to your Lordships previously in what seems to be an endless series of debates on the future of this place, it has always seemed to me that, apart from all the other things which your Lordships' House does so well and elegantly, it has one central and crucial role which on its own justifies the existence of the second Chamber in our complementary system: that is, if I do not put it too crudely, to make another place do its job properly.
One need only examine the events of the past 20 years under governments of both complexions to realise that the government of the day almost always controls another place. One direct result of that fact, particularly with the increasing professionalisation of the composition of another place, to which my noble friend alluded in his remarks, is, as many Members of your Lordships' House are wont to observe with almost excessive regularity, the enormous amounts of ill-digested legislation and the failure in another place to hold governments to account on non-legislative matters. As a result, it seems that the authority of governments suffers in the long term and that Parliament is increasingly held in contempt by the general public. Indeed, as power is stripped from Parliament and given to other institutions—to judges, the European Union and the devolved Parliaments—I cannot help wondering whether people will increasingly begin to ask themselves whether Parliament in its decline is worth defending at all.
Perhaps—this is perhaps indulgent and idle speculation—institutions are rather like lazy individuals. Perhaps they need to show their work to others in order to maintain its quality. I suspect that another place is like any other institution in that respect. If that is so, is it not also true that in our system your Lordships' House is the only institution available between general elections to which formally another place can show up its work? Above all, if we are to perform that task, as I believe my noble friend and his colleagues pointed out so ably, this House needs two characteristics: authority and independence.
Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Richard, whom I am delighted, but not surprised, to see in his place, I believe that the old House had independence, but in the view of the public and in its own estimation it no longer possessed the authority to exercise that independence. Despite what is now known admirably by the phrase coined by my noble friend Lord Strathclyde as the "Jay doctrine", I doubt whether the present House possesses that authority either. Although the noble Baroness clearly stated many times during the course of our debates on the House of Lords Act that the present House would have more authority, her own colleagues have equally clearly

945
disagreed with her if we are to believe their squawks two weeks ago about a non-elected Chamber when we ventured to disagree with them on what seemed to me to be eminently popular points.
Therefore, I was delighted that the Royal Commission recognised the importance of both independence and authority. I was equally pleased that it emphasised that the House should have a role as a constitutional longstop, as a quality controller of legislation, including European Union legislation and, as another place realistically cannot and cannot be expected to look beyond the next election, as a thinker about the medium and long term. I venture to suggest that in the past the House has played a distinguished and important role in that context.
My difficulty is that I cannot see either in the powers that it envisages for the new House or its membership that the Royal Commission endows it with enough authority to perform the task that it quite properly assigns to it. In view of the admirable objective that the Royal Commission posits of giving the House a useful role as a constitutional longstop, I find it difficult to see how any irreversible and major constitutional change can legitimately take place in our constitutional system unless it is endorsed in a post-legislative referendum. As your Lordships have discovered, a pre-legislative referendum is a way of emasculating parliamentary scrutiny, which is one of the reasons why this Government have been so addicted to that particular device.
The Royal Commission rightly sees a difficulty in deciding what constitutes a major change and who decides whether or not there is a major constitutional change in view. With the greatest respect to my noble friend, I venture to wonder whether it need have worried. Clearly, it cannot be a matter for another place to make that decision. After all, a number of your Lordships will agree with me that most of the time another place is controlled by the government of the day, who are not in a position, if they are promoting that particular constitutional reform, to be judge and jury.
I suggest a little special pleading—we are becoming used to that with this Government—that courage and common sense should put the power of exercising that judgment in your Lordships' House as the constitutional longstop. If we had the courage to do that, I suspect that the country as a whole would be grateful for our role in completing the circle in any major constitutional change so that a view can be taken about whether or not it that should be implemented after the legislation has been through both Houses of Parliament.
I could give your Lordships many other examples where I would make the same quibble. One is the suggested three-month power of delay for secondary legislation which to me does not seem to be strong enough. I venture to agree with my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition in his suggestions in that regard, but as ever I see, looking at the clock, that time is my enemy.
946
The authority that seems to be the characteristic that is so important to your Lordships' House, as the report makes clear, can come only from composition. Here, too, I agree with my noble friend's analysis, but I wonder whether his prescription is quite powerful enough. I wonder whether it is sensible to have quite so small and so circumscribed an elected proportion. My personal preference is for 50 per cent because it is easier to hold the figure at 50 per cent than to slide into an overwhelming majority of elected Members or to make the figure less than 50 per cent. That figure gives a nice equilibrium which is more difficult to assault with thin-end-of-the-wedge tactics. Equally, there is a danger that the elected element will become as much slaves of the Whips as are Members of another place, a point that has been made consistently during the course of this debate.
If the matter of election were simplified to a single 15-year non-renewable term, that would do much to alleviate the problem and would lighten the burden of the Whips on any party member. That would also make it more difficult for us to claim that we had a more recent mandate than another place, a point made by the noble Baroness who has just spoken.
I also accept that there should be a high proportion of nominated Members. Such Members would carry a different kind of authority, as many noble Lords have pointed out, from the elected membership. I believe that their expertise and experience would not reduce their standing below that of their elected colleagues, which I understand was something that worried some members of the Royal Commission. Indeed, it is perhaps disrespectful of me to say this about tribunes of the people, but from anecdotal observation I wonder whether one could not come to the opposite conclusion: that the authority of the elected Members may suffer in comparison with the performance and qualifications of the nominated Members.
I hope that the Government can be persuaded that the quickest way in which they can destroy the standing of the House after reform is to pay us, to give us enormous research facilities, big offices and staff. I suspect that that is one thing that has done more to destroy the standing of the House of Commons with its constant and undignified scrabble for increases in all such matters, ending with the greatest sign of a declining enterprise that I know of, a new building.
A number of noble Lords have suggested, if only to dismiss it, that all the work of my noble friend and his colleagues may be academic. People say that another place will not want to give us more power. They do not recognise the force of the paradox, as I certainly do, that for another place to be more effective, it must be checked effectively. Governments certainly do not subscribe to that view; and we would give them even more trouble than we do now if we were to do that.
We know that stage two cannot be implemented before the next Parliament, as I believe that the Government have implied. I regret that. It may be that for whoever wins the next general election, the will to do something will have evaporated.

947
The greatest difficulty is that identified by my noble friend Lord Strathclyde. With his usual candour, he made it clear that no single party—I was to make an exception of the Liberal Democrats until I heard the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, speak—can agree on how to reform the House. My party is split—if I have heard aright down the corridor—and I believe that the Labour Party is also split. The danger is that in spite of the incentive to the Government represented by the 92 hereditary Peers—I was delighted to hear the Leader of the House acknowledge them—nothing at all will happen. I believe, as I have always tried to make clear, that that would be a terrific wasted opportunity. We must try to keep the momentum going, without a stitch-up between the Front Benches of the three main parties of the kind suggested by the Government.
One way forward would be to set up the Joint Committee now with a wider remit than the one suggested by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, and we should use it as a matter of urgency with good will—certainly from my party—as an anvil on which to forge a consensus for progress. My only proviso is that the committee should sit in public so that those who are interested can see what is going on and help to influence it. I fear that unless something of the kind is done, we shall miss a golden opportunity to improve the performance not just of your Lordships' House, but of both Houses of Parliament, and so let our central, national, political institution sink further into contempt and perhaps even ruin.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Butler of Brockwell: My Lords, I am grateful to have had the opportunity of serving on this Royal Commission. It was a privilege to be engaged on such a task and a pleasure to serve with such colleagues and under such a chairman. I have, of course, known and worked with the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, for many years. Even so, his wisdom, charm and skill never fail to impress me. I also endorse what the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, said about the contribution of the secretariat. Its work made me proud of the profession in which I served my career.
My sympathy with the Government's decision to reform your Lordships' House in at least two stages has been reinforced by the reactions to the Royal Commission's report. The commentators, understandably, start from first principles rather than from where we are. For some, the only legitimate basis for a House of Parliament is democratic election. For others, it is anathema to have a second elected House with the same claims to legitimacy as the first.
In the light of the reactions to the report, it is easy to see why previous attempts at reform of your Lordships' House failed to surmount in one leap the two hurdles of abolishing hereditaries and deciding how a successor House should be constituted. Indeed, there are logically only three bases for composing your Lordships' House—or perhaps three-and-a-half if one includes lottery, which I beg leave to exclude today. The three are a fully elected House, a fully appointed
948
House, or some mixture of the two. Just as some reject a priori an elected House, and others reject a priori an appointed House, yet others reject a mixture of the two on the grounds that it is, to use the fashionable phrase, a dog's breakfast.
Impaled on the horns of that dilemma—or perhaps I should say "trilemma"—the Royal Commission started, I believe rightly, by asking itself what value this House should be expected to add. Surely the House of Lords should add value by bringing a perspective not necessarily supplied by the House of Commons. The House of Commons is representative of all areas of the United Kingdom, but does it fairly represent, for example, the nation in terms of gender? Not necessarily, and certainly not hitherto. Does it represent fairly ethnic origin? Not necessarily, and certainly not hitherto. Is it representative of a broad range of interests in the country? As time goes on, less and less. Do its Members have sufficient independence to exercise their judgment free of party control? Whatever its merits, nobody can say that of the other House.
That broad range of representation and that independence is something valuable which your Lordships' House can add to Parliament. In practice, it can only be achieved by appointment. In theory it could be achieved by indirect election by interest groups. But the practical problems of indirect election rehearsed in the report—problems inherent in selecting the groups to be represented and ensuring election methods of sufficient validity for conferring membership of Parliament—in practice rule out that option.
I accept—the Royal Commission accepted—that appointment, however objectively carried out, however wise the appointees, can never confer as much legitimacy as a democratic ballot. But since it is also common ground that the second House should, except in a very few matters, ultimately defer to the elected House, that is not a decisive objection.
But there is another thing which the second House should do; something particularly important in the present fissiparous state of the United Kingdom. It should be a House in which all parts of the United Kingdom have a voice. That element does, in my view, need election so that the citizens of the different parts of the country can feel that they have had a role in putting in the House people to speak for their interest. There are examples of second chambers elsewhere in the world where the absence of such an element has led to disillusion.
That leads inevitably to a House of mixed composition and raises two further questions. How big should the elected element be? How can the danger of two classes of Member be minimised? As to the size of the elected element, I am among those who feel that it should be relatively small, at least to begin with. And that for three reasons.
First, as I said, it is there for a specific purpose—to enable all parts of the United Kingdom to feel represented and that, though an important role, is only one role of the House. The second and more pragmatic

949
reason is that it is always possible, as other speakers have said, subsequently to increase the elected element if that is found desirable. It would be impossible to go the other way. Thirdly, the presence of a relatively small elected element reduces the danger of commentators saying that the vote of elected Members on a specific issue would have produced a different and, they might say, more legitimate result than the vote of the House as a whole.
However, since commentators have made much of the fact that the Royal Commission produced three options, perhaps I can say that any number within the three options recommended by the commission—that is, between 65 and 195—would be acceptable to me and I believe to most members of the commission, though my preference was for a smaller number.
As to the problem that the presence of both elected and appointed Members may lead to two classes of Member, it seems to me essential that once people are Members of your Lordships' House, by whatever route they have arrived, they should be Members on terms which are as similar as possible. It is worth reminding the House that we are used to a situation in which Members of this House have entered it by the hereditary and life peerage routes and have co-existed happily together. So the commission recommended that new Members, whether elected or appointed, should serve for 15 years and both should only stay on if appointed to do so by the appointments commission. In other words, once they were here, their status would be the same.
There are many aspects of the report, but those are the essential points with which I wanted to deal. I finish with the questions that others have asked. Will the report be implemented? Will there be a stage two? There are many sceptics who say that, despite the clearest assertion that the Government intend to proceed to stage two (and we must all have been encouraged by what the Leader of the House said this afternoon) in the event the Government will not take reform any further. Indeed, current politics gives notable examples of people changing their minds.
As a personal view, I feel it is wise for the Government not to introduce legislation to implement the main elements of the report before the next election, for two reasons. First, I think that it is sensible to allow time for parliamentarians to think about and, I hope, to reach a consensus on the issue. Secondly, this kind of issue is best not dealt with in the run-up to a general election. But after the election, I hope that the Government will act on the report.
Everyone agrees, I think, that the present House is not satisfactory. The half-life of the hereditary principle represents unfinished business. Much of the rest of the report—for example, taking appointments out of the hands of the Prime Minister—is common ground. Stage two, as recommended by the Royal Commission, need not be the final stage, but I certainly believe that it is a step forward.
It would be very easy for all parties to agree that there should be a stage two—as indeed they do—and yet to forestall it by failing to agree on the details. To
950
achieve that agreement will require give and take. It will require statesmanship. It is reassuring and rewarding for members of the Royal Commission to hear so many voices today saying that the Royal Commission has given a good start. Now it is up to the parties to show that they can rise to the challenge in the interests of the nation.
5.41 p.m.
Lord Hurd of Westwell: My Lords, it is always satisfactory when duty and pleasure combine. That is why I agree with my colleagues from the Royal Commission who have already spoken that we shall always look back with satisfaction at the time we spent studying for, and conceiving, this report. I hope that it will prove to be of substantial and practical interest. Although this has already been said, I should like to underline the tributes paid to the admirable and enviable skills deployed by my noble friend from the chair. On many occasions he filled us with admiration and I believe that we all learned a great deal from him about many aspects of parliamentary life.
It will not be possible to cover the whole field, so I should like to concentrate on the problem of devolution and, therefore, the problem of regional representation. I must say that I had hoped, when we worked on the Mackay report a long time ago—the report of the committee chaired by my noble friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern at the instance of the Leader of the Opposition and subsequently on the Wakeham Commission—that we might be able to find an answer of some kind to the glaring gap created by the present arrangements for devolution. It is a fact that four-fifths of the inhabitants of this kingdom live in England, but no English institution is in being or in immediate prospect which could wield power comparable to those in place in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales. This is a huge problem and its neglect will run us into serious danger as regards our constitutional arrangements. However, we could not find, and I do not think that it is possible to find, a solution to that problem based on a second Chamber. The problem must be solved in the House of Commons. However, we did find ways in which we could have made the problem worse by our suggestions for this Chamber. I hope that we have avoided those.
With that consideration at the back of our minds, we then thought about an approach not, I believe, yet mentioned in this debate, but which we did feel bound to consider. That approach is now in the report; namely, the suggestion that we might try to bring members of the devolved parliaments and assemblies together in this second Chamber in an attempt to hind the kingdom together. I hope that the House will agree with the fact that we came to the conclusion that this was not a good idea. Logically, it was flawed. Members of the devolved parliaments are elected for a specific purpose which does not include membership of a second Chamber at Westminster. The dual mandate, although of course it exists in the House of Commons at the moment, creates huge practical difficulties of time management and a philosophical

951
difficulty on accountability. Moreover, such a solution would worsen the English question because it would introduce into Westminster a new band of legislators from the devolved institutions of Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland able to decide matters for England which English legislators are no longer able to join in deciding for the three devolved areas.
We abandoned that idea and moved forward to the suggestions made in the report for regional representation. Perhaps I may underline here a point already made by my noble friend Lord Wakeham. We received a strong impression from all parts of the parliamentary spectrum of powerful opposition in the House of Commons to any arrangements for direct election of members of the second Chamber which would enable those members of the second Chamber to use the publicity and resources of their local position to out-manoeuvre and perhaps eventually to replace existing members of the House of Commons. There is no doubt that this is a widespread and deep-seated fear.
Of course, it would be possible to argue that that is an improper fear; that it is indefensible and that it is an interest of existing Members of the House of Commons that they should in some way be ashamed to reveal. That is not my view because it seems to me to be a natural instinct. In any case, we must take account of it, because throughout our considerations one factor of which we were very well aware was that anything we proposed must be supported and carried in the House of Commons. We thought it inconceivable, regardless of the merits of the fear which I have just described, that any House of Commons would vote for a system which appeared to create rivalries for its Members at the point where they are most vulnerable; namely, not here in Westminster, but in their constituencies.
I should also like to mention a point that has already been described most vividly by the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers. On his Benches and also much more widely throughout the country, according to the evidence we received, there is quite a strong feeling in principle of being in favour of a directly elected second Chamber. However, quickly following on the heels of that feeling is a strong desire that it should be quite different from the elected House of Commons and a pining for a system of selection and election of candidates by the parties which would prevent what otherwise would be feared; namely, that a directly elected second Chamber would consist largely of people who had tried, but not succeeded, to enter the House of Commons. Those of us who have constituency experience fear that the search for such a system is doomed to disappointment. That was one of the main reasons why, in discussion, opinion began to turn against a wholly or even largely directly elected second Chamber.
We reached a compromise, of course, and produced three models for regional representation which aim to reflect that compromise. They are now three bonny infants presented for the choice eventually to be made by Parliament, following further discussion. I am glad that the Leader of the Opposition, my noble friend
952
Lord Strathclyde, quizzed the noble Baroness the Leader of the House and received from her an assurance that Model C, the one that suggests the biggest number of directly elected members, has not been, as it were, already banished and stood in a corner in disgrace. It is still among the options under consideration by the Government.
Perhaps I may remind the noble Baroness of a point which she did not make and which has not, I believe, been made so far in the debate; namely, that a substantial majority—that is the phrase we have used in the report—of the Commission, for the reasons given by the previous speaker, the noble Lord, Lord Butler, favoured Model B. That model does provide for direct election, but not like Model A, which opts for simply translating into seats in this House the votes cast in a general election for the House of Commons. Model B provides for a sizeable minority of directly elected regional members, though not as many as Model C. I hope that the noble Baroness and others will not forget that a substantial majority of the Royal Commission did favour Model B.
It seems to me that we have been trying, through this Chamber, to introduce, or reintroduce, into Parliament two qualities that have somewhat ebbed out of our political system; namely, independence and experience. Independence has already been much mentioned in this debate and I need not repeat what has been said. There have to be limits to independence in the House of Commons. My noble friend Lord Wakeham was a Chief Whip. We have all been in the business of sustaining a government of one party or another; that is part of the job of the House of Commons. As has already been said:
"The Queens Government must be carried on".
That puts a limit on the exercise of independence by individual Members, especially on the government side. We have to accept that fact.
However, the second Chamber is not under that constraint. It does not have to sustain governments because it cannot destroy them. Therefore, whatever the system we choose—for example, the mix of appointment and election—those concerned can and should be independent to a greater degree than Members of the House of Commons. That is why we made our proposals for the elected Members to have a long term of office—they should not to be tempted by the immediate prospect of election to the House of Commons because that would be out of the question—and for the appointed Members to be appointed by an entirely independent appointments commission. That is why I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, for giving way to me earlier. I was slightly surprised by his objection because I believe it is important that the appointments commission should be able, as set out under our proposal, to appoint to this second Chamber people who are out of favour with the leaderships of their parties at the time but who, nevertheless, are part of their party and who the commission believes have a contribution to make.
I turn finally to experience. The House of Commons now lacks direct experience of walks of life outside politics. This change has come about in the past

953
20 years and is almost complete. It is a pity; perhaps it is inevitable, but it is a pity. Indeed, the whole Nolan philosophy seems to lead to the conclusion that virtue in a parliamentary body consists in being insulated from the ordinary pressures and interests of life outside politics. I do not believe that that is necessarily true. Again, there is no reason why the second Chamber should follow that lead. There seems no reason why there should be only people with past experience; there should also be people with current experience taking part in the work of the second Chamber. For example, if we had a debate on the National Health Service, we could have in this Chamber—indeed, this is already the case—speeches by distinguished surgeons or doctors who would actually speak out of direct personal experience of the working of the service.
Under our proposal, we would also have elected regional Members who would speak with the authority that that gives of conditions, say, for doctors and patients in hospitals on Tyneside or in the Midlands. We would have two kinds of people. Who could say which of those speakers would carry the greater authority? One would speak from direct personal experience and the other would speak as the representative of the region. It seems to me that bringing together these two kinds of authority is an entirely legitimate and admirable way of rebuilding the political authority of the House of Lords of which my noble friend Lord Strathclyde rightly spoke.
5.52 p.m.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I join with other speakers in paying tribute to the work of the Royal Commission. It would be nice to be able to use the words of Macaulay when describing the trial of Warren Hastings and say that it was "massive, precious and splendid". But that might be going over the top. Therefore, without too much commitment, I shall just refer to a noble endeavour.
There are over 40 speakers on the list and I suppose that each one of us thinks that he knows best what ought to be done about the second Chamber in this country. Those who have served with much distinction in both Houses, like the noble Lord who has just spoken, will have special confidence in their own judgment. I must be forgiven for mentioning my own credentials. They are no more than anyone else's, but they still exist. I have been a Member here for 54 years. During that time I held various government posts, including the leadership of the House. I was also a Member of one of the Front Benches for 22 years. So, naturally, I have confidence in my own contribution.
However, I also have the qualification, which is not common in this House, of having taught politics for 10 years as a university don at Oxford. Therefore, from that point of view, I look at matters rather differently from those whose experiences have been derived directly from life or, very often, from politics. I look at matters from two angles: first, from the academic angle; and, secondly, from the point of view of my long experience here.
954
From the academic angle, one would reach conclusions that ignored the immense value of this House. Indeed, that is something that cannot really be put on paper and cannot be described in books. But I am sure that anyone who has served here for a number of years—and many have served here for a good many years—feels, as I do, that this House has rendered invaluable services to the nation. I do not believe that any second Chamber in the world has done such a good job as this House in the past 50 years. People may use those rather famous words and say, "Well, he would say that, wouldn't he?" That may be true, but I believe that my academic training enables me to look at the matter with some objectivity.
I would say that the debates in this House are superior to any debates known to me in other chambers. Even last week, after the reform of the House, we had notable debates on asylum seekers, on hospices and, indeed, on the question of non-food agricultural products. I do not believe that those debates could have been rivalled anywhere else. If anyone wants to intervene and point out that there were better debates elsewhere, I shall be glad to know. But I do not believe it. Such debates are enormously valuable.
At this point I should like to pay a tribute. It is one that I have paid more than once and I shall do so yet again. I pay tribute to the hereditary Peers—not to all of them, of course, because some of them may be doing awfully good work elsewhere. I am talking about the ones who have come here a good deal and have rendered faithful service either by speaking or by just listening. The latter have provided us with a audience; an all-important audience. I feel enormously sorry for them and, indeed, sorry for the rest of us because we are now without them. I suppose we all have our own favourites, personal friends or perhaps some Peers to whom we owe a special debt. For example, I happen to owe a special debt to the noble Lord, Lord Ashbourne, the leader of a very inspiring prayer group for many years. I am sure that everyone will have his own Barry Ashbourne.
However, reform had to come. Two-thirds of the 750 Peers seldom, or never, came here, so the place had to be reformed. I voted solidly for the government measure that has now passed into law. So we have this reformed House. So far, I do not think that anyone could say that the quality of debates has declined. But what is less certain is whether the atmosphere, the tradition, the decency, the civilisation and the underlying Christianity of this House will be maintained. I hope and believe that it will be. I try to believe that that will occur but it will not do so unless we make sure that we value this House. If we start from the assumption that something is wrong about the place, we shall be starting from the wrong end. We must start from the assumption that we want it to carry on the traditions and improve upon them.
So what about the present House? By and large, I would say that it is very praiseworthy and fully worthy of Britain. But there is one obvious defect; namely, that there is a built-in Conservative majority. No doubt that will have to be corrected and, indeed,

955
will be corrected in one way or another. But, apart from that defect, I certainly do not see any great advantage in talking about a hypothetical second stage of reform. That is rather a fantasy to me. When people ask me, "What do you want: what is your view on the future of the House of Lords?", I say, "The present one somewhat improved". I agree that something serious must be done about the way of appointing Peers, but I shall leave that to other speakers.
I must mention one other matter before I sit down and that is that I am, on principle, utterly opposed to any elected element here. It would make a nonsense of the place. I refer to two aspects of the matter which have been lightly touched on by previous speakers. First, the elected Peers could claim a democratic mandate and occupy a superior position to the others. That would constitute a dog's breakfast. Secondly, who would comprise these elected people? They would be "second raters"—people who could not get elected to the House of Commons, or people who could not even get elected to the European Parliament. They might comprise people who could not even get elected to the Scottish Parliament or to the Welsh Assembly. We would get the dregs. Therefore, as I say, I am utterly opposed to an elected element. That way, in my eyes, lies madness. We have inherited a noble legacy; it would be criminal to betray it.
6 p.m.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I take as my starting point what seems to me to be a real and increasing public concern that Parliament is somehow being downgraded, if not actually bypassed, by this Government. My noble friend Lord Cranborne referred to some of the reasons for that; namely, power being stripped from Parliament and given to the European Union, to the devolved parliaments and to judges. Further, sometimes government announcements appear in the press before they are announced in Parliament.
That highlights the importance and significance of the debate today on the future of the House of Lords and the second Chamber. I note with interest that in Scotland, where there is no second Chamber, the Parliament has not found it quite as easy to manage its affairs as it might have thought when the new constitutional arrangements were put in place.
I too wish to thank my noble friend Lord Wakeham and the Royal Commission for the report and for their work. Whatever one's views about the report as a whole, I find the early chapters, particularly Chapter 3, together with a great deal of the analysis which follows and the historical background, of great interest. They set out clearly the reasons why we are where we are, and are well worth studying. I am sure that we all find that valuable.
Believing, as I do, not only in a second Chamber but in one that is strengthened and able to hold the executive to account, it seems to me that we need to move ahead. Here I very much welcome the remarks of my noble friend Lord Strathclyde. We could begin
956
with some of the areas where there is agreement. I think of the debates we had on the then House of Lords Bill and the big issues that worried us. I was therefore pleased to see in Recommendation 20 that the quinquennial provision is to be kept and that the power of the second Chamber to prevent the House of Commons prolonging its life is to be retained.
I hope very much that we shall establish by statute an independent appointments commission. I listened with great interest to what the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, had to say on that point. I believe that that is an important matter on which there is much agreement. As I believe that we shall make better progress where there is cross-party support, I hope that we can move forward on that matter.
There has already been much discussion as regards a Joint Committee of both Houses to consider the future of the second Chamber. There is value to be gained in moving forward on that issue although I recognise the real difficulties that stand in the way. As has been pointed out, there is little agreement within the political parties on the best way to proceed. Different individuals have their own ideas on how the second Chamber should be constituted and on what its powers should be.
I was a member of the Conservative Party working party set up in the 1970s under the chairmanship of the late Lord Home to consider the future of the House of Lords. Our general conclusion at that time, which commanded much support, was for a part-elected, part-appointed and part-hereditary House. I believe that there should be some elected Members in the second Chamber. I believe that only by going down that route will the House be more democratic and have the authority which it needs to implement its powers. However, a problem arises—I do not believe that this has been touched on—once one has elected Members, and the problem increases the higher the proportion of elected Members; namely, whether they will be satisfied with the powers that the House has. One needs to reflect on that. I certainly agree with the commission as regards not being in favour of a fully elected House for the many reasons that have been advanced and not least because I think that it is most unlikely that the House of Commons would agree to that. It would, of course, be a recipe for gridlock between the two Houses.
I have noticed in the report and in previous debates that it is suggested that somehow appointed Peers are more democratic and more representative than hereditary Peers. It is extremely important to recognise that appointed Peers are neither democratic nor representative. They may be other things, but they do not have those particular qualities. However, when one considers the detail of the election arrangements and reads the Royal Commission's report, in conjunction with the report of my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern, it is possible to see how a future House could combine both elected and appointed Peers. I believe that that would constitute a stronger House. I welcome the concept of a 15-year term for both elected and appointed Peers. I consider that that would overcome some of the difficulties.

957
I believe that my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay made other suggestions, but this is an area that would have to be studied in considerable detail.
I turn to the question of appointed Peers. I am glad that the commission recognised the importance of retaining the expertise in this House. One of the valuable characteristics of the House of Lords—I share the point that the noble Earl, Lord Longford, has just made about the House as it is presently constituted—is that it contains so many people who have expert knowledge in their field. That lends an impressive quality to general debates and it lends an edge and a quality to the revision of legislation. As a former Minister who was quite frequently on the receiving end of detailed criticism on the part of experts on some matter of policy, I know how that quality of debate sharpened one's contribution to the debate and the quality of the debate. Whatever may or may not emerge from this discussion, we should certainly lose something of great importance and distinction if we did not retain the experts in this House.
I touch on Recommendation 34 on overseas territories, which interests me. This issue is unlikely to be raised by others. These small countries, which are the legacy of the Empire, are not directly represented anywhere and are not independent and therefore cannot speak for themselves. Nevertheless, they have their problems. One needs think only of Montserrat, the Falklands, Gibraltar or St Helena, to say nothing of the others, to realise that there is something to be said for considering representation on their part. I hope that the appointments commission will seriously consider this matter.
Time does not allow me to comment in detail on a great many of the other recommendations. However, I am not happy about Recommendation 70(f) which mentions minimum quotas of 30 per cent women and 30 per cent men. I have never been in favour of a quota system for anyone. I think it devalues those in the quota; it devalues the individual. All too easily quotas can become a maximum number rather than a minimum number. I am not sure that the end result is what one would want.
There is a great deal in the report which deserves close and careful consideration. I particularly welcome the proposals contained in Chapter 16 which build on the procedures of the House as we have known it. The House is unique in being a self-regulating Chamber and it has greatly benefited from it. Any loss of that status would be a great disadvantage.
I welcome the emphasis on a stronger House to do the work which is its main purpose—that is, calling the executive to account. The proposals concerning secondary legislation are important and I welcome the establishment of a constitutional committee.
Time does not allow one to go into all the detail that one would like. I share the views of other noble Lords that, if we are to move on this, we should proceed where we can—particularly in regard to the appointments committee—and consider these other matters. There are big problems to be resolved, but this
958
is very important. It will meet a promise that was made during the long and very painful debates that the House went through over stage one. We owe it to those hereditary Peers who were pushed out unceremoniously to ensure that a better House than the one we had before comes out of this. It should be our aim to create a House which has both the authority and the independence to call the executive to account. People are concerned today about an over-powerful executive; it is our job to produce a legislature to balance that executive.
6.12 p.m.
Lord Dahrendorf: My Lords, if one thing has become increasingly evident today, it is that the Wakeham report provides an excellent basis for moving forward. I am pleased about that. It is informative, thoughtful, well argued and persuasive in most of its recommendations. That sounds like the kind of statement which is followed by exceptions—and it is. If I had the subtlety and wisdom of my noble friend Lord Ezra, I would say that it leaves me with two questions. The two questions coming from me—which are similar to his—may, however, sound more like statements to some noble Lords. But they are questions. Like many others—and obviously like members of the commission itself—I am not sure that I have thought everything through sufficiently to be entirely certain of my arguments.
It is right that the report should have begun with a discussion of the role of the second Chamber. That role is, in large part, a result of what the report calls "the constitutional context"—that is, the context in which we are operating. One can imagine a totally different context. I can even imagine—although I do not wish for—a context in which a second Chamber would not be necessary.
We are operating in a context characterised by two elements: first, the absence of a written constitution and thus, for example, the absence of a constitutional court; and, secondly—and I underline both words—the "strengths" and the "weaknesses" of the House of Commons, the other place.
So far as concerns the first of these contextual facts, there is therefore a need for a constitutional long-stop. That can, to some extent, be provided by the House of Lords, especially if the House is strengthened by a constitution committee and by participation in a human rights committee. I am a little more sceptical about the desirability of amending the Parliament Act in any way unless it is absolutely necessary.
So far as concerns the strengths and weaknesses of the other place, too little has so far been said about its strengths. Perhaps I am reasonably well placed, with a degree of comparative experience, to point to at least two major strengths of the House of Commons. It is stronger in relation to government than most other parliaments in the sense that government is largely recruited from Parliament, which supports and sustains that government. It is also a Chamber that holds government to account. Make no mistake, even Prime Minister's Questions—a seemingly small

959
feature in the weekly life of the House of Commons—is very different from most parliaments in Europe. I know of one Prime Minister in a not very small member state of the European Union who prides himself on going to his Parliament three or four times a year and having his Members of Parliament come to him. There is still in the Parliament of Westminster, and in the House Commons in particular, an element of direct exchange which involves a degree of control of Parliament which is not universal. The other place is also stronger than most parliaments in the way it links the political centre with the electorate through the constituency principle.
Strengths often have weaknesses as their flip side. The Wakeham Commission makes the important statement:
"Debate in the Commons is often more confrontational and party political".
That is one reason why it is unlikely to be a chamber in which great national debates about the long term—to quote the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne—can take place. That is perhaps the key point. It is a chamber in which, because of its strengths and the time and the structures that go with them, there is not really the ability for the kind of line-by-line scrutiny of legislation which is the daily work of the second Chamber.
If this is the constitutional context, it defines the role of the second Chamber very clearly. In many ways, I am simply following what the Wakeham Commission tells us: that it is a constitutional long-stop; that it is a Chamber for legislative scrutiny, not least for the scrutiny of legislation which emerges not from this Parliament but from Europe; and that it is a forum for important debates. The composition of the second Chamber follows from this particular role.
I agree unreservedly with the four points made by the Wakeham Commission: no wholly or largely directly elected chamber; no indirect election; no random selection; and no co-option. I also agree that, if these alternatives are ruled out, the appointments commission will require careful attention. Like other noble Lords who have spoken, I am a little concerned that the noble Lord. Lord Wakeham, should mind so much what he calls "cherry picking". Sometimes, strategic changes with great leverage can be a pretty good beginning for a considerable process of change. Establishing an appointments commission as foreseen in the Wakeham report would be one such strategic change.
I come to my two questions. Having 65, 87 or 190 elected Members seems to me one of the few quite pointless recommendations. It is true that 15 years, plus a prohibition on standing for the other place for another 10, amounts almost to appointment for life. Even so, it seems to me that elected Members would be a curiously alien element unless they were the advance party of a totally different chamber. Above all, I am simply not convinced that they would provide what the commission wants them to provide; namely, "authority" or "legitimacy".
960
Legitimacy is an important and complex idea. It has to do with legality; following certain rules; effectiveness, competence and qualifications; and confidence, both within the Chamber and outside it. Elections are not the only method of providing legitimacy; nor do they necessarily do so at all times. I am not sure that the directly elected European Parliament is more legitimate than its predecessor—an assembly gathered from the parliaments of the member states. Conversely, our judges, and such bodies as the Monetary Policy Committee, are quite legitimate without being elected, because they comply with many of the criteria of legitimacy. In that sense, I should find it possible, in line with the constitutional role of the second Chamber, including the prevalence of the first, to conceive of a House wholly appointed by a plausible and transparent process. Indeed, I can readily think of reasons why it would conduct its business better than either a hybrid or a wholly elected chamber.
My second question relates to the vexing issue to which the noble Lord, Lord Hurd, addressed his comments. It is the issue of the regions. "Giving a voice to the nations and regions" is a pervasive theme of the Wakeham report, and "acting as a unifying force" is one of its intentions and programmatic proposals. I understand all that very well. But despite the strong leads given by the commission, I am not convinced by its solution.
The devolution of powers to the nations of the United Kingdom—and soon to its regions and cities as well—represents a massive constitutional change. It raises a whole new set of problems and conflicts. These are not simple conflicts, let alone conflicts of personality. I remember vividly, during our debate on the Scotland Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, raising the issue of what would happen once the Scottish Parliament had to accept a reduction of 21 in its membership because there was such a reduction in Scottish Members in the House of Commons. That issue has all the elements of a constitutional conflict—incidentally, in this case, between two elected parliaments. It indicates the magnitude of the problems that will be raised by devolution in all its parts.
I urge all those who are involved in thinking about the future of the second Chamber not to burden Lords reform with a resolution of the obvious problems and conflicts that will arise from devolution. A voice for the nations and regions is a nice idea. But simply electing or appointing a few regional Members to this House would bring about many of the same problems that would arise if we had representation of the professions and introduce what I should regard as an irrelevant perspective into the debates and the work of the second Chamber. We should fail to resolve the real issues of the regions versus the centre, or even possibly deceive the regions—for who is to say where a regional representative resides and has his or her loyalties after five, 10 or 15 years? What the nations and regions need is judicial institutions—and perhaps fully representative institutions—not an optional extra tagged on to a reformed second Chamber.

961
I am afraid that I have sounded more dogmatic than I intended. My questions are posed in the hope that we shall make progress in the timescale mentioned by other noble Lords and on the basis of the outstanding report which is the subject of our debate.
6.26 p.m.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, the Royal Commission is to be congratulated. It is typical of my noble friend Lord Wakeham that he should have tried to produce a scheme that was politically saleable rather than waste his time devising one that would never become a reality. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf: the report forms an excellent basis for moving forward.
Personally, I do not believe that a wholly elected House was ever a runner. Of course, an elected Chamber composed of the representatives of the people has a special authority. That is why one does not want two of them, with the second being either a carbon copy of the first or a rival. Like the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, I do not accept the argument that an unelected House must lack legitimacy. No House established by a sovereign Parliament with the consent of the people can possibly be illegitimate. However, I have not the slightest doubt that those who call for an elected House to secure what they consider to be the necessary legitimacy will not be mollified by the offer of a small elected element. The question at the end of day is whether opting for a modest elected element in an otherwise nominated House is worth while.
The commission's proposal that there should be a modest elected element has all the hallmarks of a compromise in a bid to achieve a unanimous report. It does not fit comfortably with the rest of the very logical scheme devised by the commissioners. Let us look at the evidence. It is surely only the decision to have an elected element which forces the commission to make the odd, and otherwise pretty indefensible, suggestion that the nominated Members should serve for three electoral cycles rather than for life or until a fixed retirement age.
The commission is forced down that path because of its determination to avoid what it calls "mixed membership problems" and make sure that in a mixed House all Members enjoy parity of esteem. That is the reasoning. Again, it is the decision to have an elected element which forces the commission to conclude that, as one can hardly have people elected for life or give them peerages for being elected, there must be a new House with the link broken between the possession of a peerage and membership of the second Chamber. That is a very unsatisfactory proposal, carrying with it the risk that the peerage as an institution will die, there being little point in the acceptance of a peerage rather than, say, a knighthood if the peerage does not carry with it the right to sit in the legislature.
Those difficulties would have to be faced and we would have to put up with the new Chamber if the case for a partially elected House was compelling, but in my
962
view it is not. I share many of the concerns expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, particularly in relation to regional members.
Although I do not put this anywhere near the top of my list of objections, I believe that there would be difficulty in finding people of worth who were prepared to stand for election for only a three-Parliament term when all that was on offer was a modest payment related to attendance. I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Longford, that the only people interested in it would be those who had failed to get into the House of Commons, the European Parliament, the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly. I do not know how many would be left after all that. I am not half as optimistic as the commission that in a mixed House all the members would have parity of esteem. It would not be long before the press began to talk about the Government having survived a Division but not having won a majority of the elected members.
What I really cannot support is the suggestion that the elected element should be made up of regional members who would be able to speak for each regional unit of the United Kingdom and facilitate a stronger regional voice in Europe, as the report suggests. Frankly, I believe that we need that like a hole in the head. It is true that if House of Lords reform had been addressed before devolution a strong case could have been made for the second Chamber to be composed of representatives of the constituent parts of the United Kingdom, the nations. However, we are not talking about representatives of Scotland, Wales, England and Northern Ireland but about regionalism, particularly within England. I believe that development of regionalism will drastically weaken the authority of this Parliament and the unity of the country.
The English regions set up by the Government are not natural entities and for the most part those who live within their boundaries do not feel any common loyalty or enjoy any identity of interest. We are not a big country. When we reform this place we must not lend encouragement to any design to split the country artificially and set one part against another. Therefore, like the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, I am wholly against having regional members. If we must have an elected element, for goodness sake it must not be dressed up as regional members.
Further, the idea of having a small elected element is wholly unnecessary. The really important and beneficial change proposed by Wakeham is the creation of the independent appointments commission. If there is such a commission with the statutory duty to ensure not only that there is a strong independent element in the House but that there is an appropriate balance between the political parties we shall have all that is required. I hope that the Government will legislate for such a commission right away. That will provide some reassurance to those of us with a suspicious nature that the Government will not spend the next year continuing to create Labour Peers at the present rate, thus providing themselves—if they are still in office—with an enormous majority when the new House is first set

963
up, because by then the Weatherill Peers will have gone. The public would also be given important reassurance if we went ahead with that proposal right away.
If we went down the route of a nominated House with an independent appointments commission guaranteeing a fair political balance we would be (in the words of the report),
"going with the grain of the British evolutionary approach to constitutional reform".
which the Royal Commission said at the outset was its ambition. For this House, the House of Lords, not, for goodness sake, a senate—I cannot imagine why anyone should bring into the debate such a concept, which is completely foreign to our constitutional history—will continue in existence, complete with Law Lords and Bishops, and those who sit in it will be Peers, no doubt with "LP" after their names to distinguish them from Peers without the right to sit.
I shall not weary the House further. Those are the important points that I want to make. I have no quarrel with the proposal that no longer should it be possible to amend the Parliament Acts using Parliament Act procedures, because it will reinforce and safeguard the Chamber's power of veto over any Bill to extend the life of a Parliament.
6.35 p.m.
Viscount Tenby: My Lords, I am glad that we are having a helpful and constructive debate on this matter with ne'er a look backwards, because we have the future to think about now.
Having been part of the original group under my noble friend Lord Carnarvon which began to consider this most intractable of problems some six years ago, I have to say that the thought of another long haul is daunting indeed. No doubt that view is shared by the Government Front Bench. However, I am tempted to remind the Government that the good news is that it is always darkest before the dawn: the bad news is that we have only just passed midnight. I am in the happy position of having no axe to grind. I am what can only be described charitably as a "goner", whatever the future solution may be, so at least I can speak impartially.
The report, on which I should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, and his colleagues, not least because of its completion under a very tight schedule and the eminently clear style in which it is written, has attracted criticism from some quarters, quite wrongly in my view. It would be strange to find a report that covered such a wide and detailed area which pleased everybody. I find myself in support of the majority of its arguments and conclusions.
The area covered by the report is so wide and far-ranging that I propose to refer to only two main points. However, in passing I very much welcome the recommendation that all recognised religious groups should have representation.
Moving effortlessly from God to Mammon, it is important to attract the very top people to serve on the new appointments commission which, if this
964
particular recommendation is adopted, will be the linchpin of the whole operation. That will, surely, involve paying its members more than the derisory sum suggested for the interim appointments commission. Any businessman will confirm that if one pays peanuts, one tends to get monkeys.
I move to the two main areas on which I should like to comment. I very much agree with the conclusion of the report that the greater part of the new House should be appointed, not elected. I go so far as to favour Options A or B as representing those which would create the smallest percentage of elected regional representatives. There are many in this debate and outside it who do not share that view and for whom the phrase "the tyranny of the ballot box" is seen as provocative and offensive. However, let us be practical and try to avoid the politically correct knee-jerk reaction which says that predominantly disinterested voters should decide who is to sit here.
We must ask ourselves repeatedly the question that has been asked in this debate and in others: what is the purpose of this House? In all the debate that there has been on this matter most people can at least agree on the following principal objectives of this place: to ask questions of the Government on topical issues of the day; to debate matters of current concern; above all, to scrutinise legislation from the other place, and even from Europe, with the utmost care: and, in the case of the former, to suggest amendments to legislation, which has often been hastily and imperfectly drawn up, in the hope that they may be accepted when they go back to another place. If not, so be it. For such a role one does not need, as it were, the worthy Councillor Buggins reluctantly elected by, say, 15 per cent of the electorate; instead, one wants experts on every subject under the sun—and that is something we thankfully have in abundance in this House.
Quite apart from that stark fact of life, to add elections to this House on top of European elections, local elections and, in the appropriate areas, assembly elections would be piling Pelion on Ossa. It is difficult enough—heaven knows—to get our fellow countrymen to vote once every five years. Perhaps we should contemplate making voting compulsory, but that is a subject for another day. But I believe that the limit we can go for is, as the commission says in the report, to have limited regional selection on the back of a general election vote.
There are other considerations against an elected House. After a landslide general election victory, one would have a weak rubber-stamp here of another place. Conversely if the election were to be held half-way through the parliamentary term and the voters had turned, one would have stalemate. How would one protect the precious flower of independence under such an arrangement? Equally daunting, who would wish to stand for a subservient Chamber, and what quality would they be? I understand the passionate view in this matter of, for example, the Liberal Democrats. I find the conversion of some Conservatives (not particularly in this House) to universal suffrage for this House as amusing and fascinating as any of the contortions

965
performed by the Vicar of Bray. However, I should be the last person to suggest that this conversion owed anything whatever to political expediency.
Perhaps I may now say a word about the Independents. Cross-Benchers will, I suspect, come to seem increasingly old fashioned as the years unroll. The commission's and the Government's commitment to the central role to be played in future by the Independents is very much to be welcomed—-I would say that, wouldn't I?—but certain misconceptions and problems should be faced. Some have already been touched on by my noble and gallant friend Lord Craig.
Perhaps I may make some other points. There is a widely held belief on all sides of the House, however great the assurances that it is not so, that Independents act in concert on occasion just like the political parties. I recall with amusement during the previous government that it was felt that Independents then voted more often with the Opposition than with the Government. I have not the slightest doubt that the same feelings occur within the Government today. If that is really the case, it would seem to suggest that things are just about right. But whatever the pattern—and, believe me, I have sought to make some sense of it over the years—it always defies rational prediction or explanation.
What is clear, at least in my view, is that we must guard the flame of independence ever more carefully in the months and years to come if we are worthy to be trusted with this new central role, even if it risks alienating party managers and certainly party Whips.
It is important to identify the principal problems inherent in this dependence on independence in balancing the voting patterns of a future House. Any group without a Whip and, to compound that, any group comprising people of distinction in other fields with large outside commitments, will inevitably have a poor voting record the more unsocial the hour at which the vote is taken. It is surely something of an irony that the very constituent believed on all sides to be one of the new House's most important elements should be so vulnerable in this way. Having made that point, it is also important to draw attention to the fact that deliberate abstention is often a factor in Independent actions and it often seems to me to be a pity that psephology, if not party managers or statisticians, has not been able to recognise that fact.
In practical terms, however, I suggest that there is no immediate answer to the problem, but there is one possible consolation that I can offer the House. It is what might be called the reserve power of the Independents; namely, the likelihood that there will always be a big Independent vote on a big issue provided that it is at a controlled time.
To sum up, I do not agree that a new second Chamber cannot have legitimacy if it is largely unelected. Our legitimacy will be as a result of our work and our contribution to the government of this country. It is vital that we should be as different from the other place as it is possible to be. Only in that way can the richness and diversity of Parliament be enhanced, at the same time providing the
966
constitutional checks which every democracy needs. That is the task as we come to fashion an effective second Chamber and we must tackle it with expedition, resolution and good will.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Jopling: My Lords, I begin my adding my good wishes to my noble friend Lord Wakeham and his colleagues for an admirable report. I agree with a great deal of it, although I share the reservations of my noble friend Lord Waddington about having an elected element in your Lordships' House.
I want to concentrate on a certain aspect of the composition of your Lordships' House after stage two. I have made the point in two previous debates and have been greeted with stony silence from the Government Front Bench. Perhaps it will be third time lucky today. I shall concentrate on the percentage of Members who will sit in the House who are government supporters. It is an important issue because, without doubt, this House will after its second transition become a great deal more political than it has been in the past. I have noticed that it has become a good deal more political in the three years that I have attended the House. Although we shall have a different situation from the somewhat strange balances between the parties in the past, we need to think hard about the Government's representation in your Lordships' House in the future.
At present, the Government have 27 per cent of the membership of the House. Consequently it comes as no surprise to anyone that they are defeated as often as they are. Apart from the good sense underlying those defeats, it is great sport for the Opposition parties to tumble the Government every now and again. However, the down-side is that, with only 27 per cent of the membership, the Government are able to brush off a defeat with or without the rather petulant reactions from the leadership that we have seen ill recent times. But, with only 27 per cent of the membership, the clout and influence of the House is reduced because the Government of the day can find a ready excuse in the arithmetic to reject the views of the House.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, can my noble friend help me on this? Is not the 27 per cent a rather artificial percentage? Do we not know from the history of the past two or three years that on the vast majority of occasions the Liberal Democrats supported the Government? It has been on only a rare occasion that the de facto alliance between the Liberal Democrats and the Government has not been demonstrated in the Lobbies.
Lord Jopling: My Lords, my noble friend makes a fair point, although in today's debate the Liberal Democrat Party seems to be split over whether one should have a totally elected or totally appointed House.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lords, Lord Jopling and Lord Waddington, would put that proposition to the Leader of the House and see whether she takes the same view of the independence of the Liberal Democrats.
The Attorney General (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, she does not.
Lord Jopling: My Lords, I should like to return to my speech at some time, but I shall certainly give way to the noble and learned Lord the Attorney General.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, despite the fact that I am a lawyer, I spoke briefly.
Lord Jopling: My Lords, I do not know what kind of a fee would come from such an interjection.
The noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, said that the Government reject the views of the House because it is not elected. However, I suggest to him and to your Lordships that the reason is also because they have such a small representation here. I believe that if one wanted the influence of the House to grow—and tonight many speakers have expressed that desire—it is essential that the government of the day have a larger share of the voting power.
We are told that the present Government's 27 per cent of the membership will soon be increased up to parity with the main opposition party, a situation which they foretold in their White Paper published in January last year. However, the Wakeham report proposed that, after taking away 20 per cent of the membership reserved for the Cross Benchers, the remaining 80 per cent should be split in proportion to the popular vote at the previous general election. That will not work, because in two elections I can think of—that in 1951 and the first in 1974—the Opposition had a bigger share of the vote than the Government. It would therefore be total nonsense for the main opposition party in this House to have more members than the government party.
The Wakeham proposals mean that a government elected with 40 per cent of the popular vote would have only 32 per cent of the membership of your Lordships' House. I do not believe that that is sufficient and fair to the government of the day. Of course we do not want a House dominated by the government party, as the Royal Commission says. However, having only about one-third of the Members still gives the Government the excuse of being able to reject the view of the House.
I believe that in future, the government of the day, in what after stage two will be a wholly different House, should have between 35 per cent and 40 per cent of the membership. I should like to see a written understanding that the governing party would have a minimum of 35 per cent of the membership, but I cannot help feeling that 40 per cent would not be unfair. It is right that, after excluding the Cross Benchers, the government of the day should have half the remaining membership. In that situation, they would not dominate the House.
968
I also find unsatisfactory the Wakeham committee recommendation that the government of the day will not reach their fair share under those proposals until a series of six-monthly appointments are made by the appointments commission. I believe that after a general election the government of the day are entitled to get their membership at once. One must arrange the appointments commission so that the government of the day do not have wait for perhaps three years, if there has been a big swing, before they reach their fair allotment of Members in this House.
The danger is that, if there were a series of electoral results see-sawing from one party to the other, the total membership could rise above the 550 which Wakeham suggests should be the norm. However, one could overcome that by rejecting the recommendation that Life Peers should be appointed for a period of 15 years. In order to avoid that burgeoning total figure, it ought to be possible to make appointments for one Parliament only, but on the understanding that it might be for more.
I am sure that there would be no shortage of people prepared to come here for the period of a Parliament. After all, we all know that people stand in marginal seats knowing that if they win it is likely to be for only one Parliament. If the modern practice in parliamentary constituencies is to reject all candidates over 50—and I know of such cases—many people of great ability who are at the end of their career and are interested in a political life would readily agree to be appointed to this House for the period of one Parliament and on the understanding that they might be able to carry on into the following one.
I want to repeat the point that in this context one must address the problem of the non-attending Life Peers. As the House becomes inevitably more political, it will be essential that Members attend and support their party. As regards those noble Lords who for one reason or another are unable to attend often, but as existing Life Peers have the right to remain Members for life, there should be an arrangement whereby they could be given the right to retire and still to attend and speak, but not to vote. If only 45 of us are to be left here in 2020, such a situation would not last long.
I believe that the government of the day deserve a substantial representation—more than Wakeham has suggested—without at the same time dominating the House.
6.57 p.m.
Lord Sawyer: My Lords, I too broadly support the recommendations of the Wakeham report. It is a substantial contribution and will help us greatly in finding our way forward.
I want to focus on one part of the report; that dealing with the composition of the new House. In particular, I want to focus on the appointed/elected argument which revolves around that. The elections suggested in the report will be very different from any other parliamentary elections we have experienced. The report refers to the elections being marginal to

969
other elections and of limited personal electioneering. We must explore exactly what that means and whether it will meet the legitimate aspirations of the electorate.
The report proceeds on the premise that the public want a substantially directly elected component of this House. I am not sure that I agree. All the political parties have signed up to that, the press have made the case and the pressure groups have had their say. However, in my opinion, the case for a radical, open, accountable appointments system has never been properly put. For example, there has never been an alternative to the book produced by my noble friend Lord Richard, which argues for direct elections. We have not really seen the case put forward for an accountable appointed Chamber—although, of course, many Members of this House have argued it—except in the sense that it has now been advanced in the Wakeham report. If that case stands up and if the case for an appointments commission is viable, surely if it is good enough for the majority of Members of this Chamber it is good enough for those members who represent the regions.
However, I put that matter to one side for now and concentrate on the issue that I wished to raise; that is, the question of getting right the elections to this Chamber. It seems inevitable that we shall have such elections. We must ensure that our concept of a democratically elected Chamber is in keeping with the concept of the voters who have spoken to and won the case with the Wakeham Commission. When we made similar democratic changes in the selection and election of candidates to the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and, to some extent, the London mayor, clearly we did not think things through properly and did not get the detail right. On this occasion, we must ensure that we do so. If we say that we will have a partly elected second Chamber, we must give people a real choice; if we promise democratic elections, we must deliver democratic elections.
In that context, I should have liked to see set out in the commission's report some of the tests or principles which it considered as constituting a democratic election. I have my own list. First, the report accepts the role of parties. I believed that it might downplay that role, but it did not. It sees parties as being important in the election process. The second principle is that parties which fight elections must have policies to put to the voters. Thirdly, they must have manifestos or ways of communicating those policies to the voters. Finally, they must have candidates to go out into the field and fight. Those are all genuine and legitimate tests that any electoral system must pass.
However, paragraph 12.25 of the report states that,
"the selection of regional members will take place, as it were, in the 'margins' of other electoral contests".
I do not believe that that presents a very positive signal to people who are about to embark on an electoral process. Is it a matter of marginal versus principal?
970
What are these elections, and what is a marginal election in which I am being invited to participate? Secondly, it goes on to say that:
"Candidates for the second Chamber will not be required to engage in extensive personal electioneering".
What does that mean? Does it mean that there will be an undue emphasis on party lists or party management? Clearly, many of the people who have given evidence to the commission would find that unwelcome. I believe that that defining paragraph will return to haunt the commission in the future.
The report goes on to mention three models: A, B and C. We have all read about those models in the report. Basically, they provide lists of Peers who are attached either to Westminster or to European elections. Under Models B and C, there will be a separate ballot paper at the same time and on the same day as the European elections. However, it seems that there will be no candidate election addresses or campaigns in the conventional sense of what we understand to occur in elections.
The elections will take place in the margins of other elections and people will not have a personal campaigning or electioneering role. Therefore, in order to fight for a seat as a regional representative in the House of Lords, one would do so in tandem with other candidates who would be fighting different elections for a completely different place, presumably on completely different manifestos. Those are the implications of what I read in paragraph 12.25.
Therefore, will that system pass the test? Will it pass not this House's or the politicians' but the voters' test of democratic elections for their regional representatives? I have very strong doubts about that. The nub of my concern is the grave danger that, if elected under the terms of the Wakeham report, the regional representatives for this Chamber will not be able to come to this Chamber and make a distinctive case based on the elections conducted in the regions. That is the nub of my case and the centre of my concern.
Yet, if one reads on under options B and C, there will be a partially open list in which voters can express their preference for candidates in a certain order. How can a voter rank a candidate who is not engaged in a personal electioneering campaign? By definition, the voter will not have the information, the personal details or the policies of the candidates whom they are being asked to rank. I make those points because, if voters want a substantial elected element, the elections will need to pass a legitimate test of comprehensiveness, accountability and democracy. I cannot see that occurring under the arrangements set out in the report.
I still believe that appointments are credible to a body that is the subordinate as opposed to the primary Chamber. I still believe that there is a case for that argument. As my noble friend Lady Dean, who is not in her place at present, told me, she has spent all her life fighting elections, and so have I. Currently I am standing for election to two primary bodies: one is the board of a building society with 1.3 million voters and the other, primarily, is the executive of my party, with half a million voters. Those are primary elections.

971
I shall carry out primary responsibilities and I accept direct elections for them. In this House my role is complementary; it is a subordinate role. In my view, the appointments system would be a satisfactory test to pass.
As for elections, I believe that four issues need to be considered for a satisfactory appointments system: first, open application; secondly, independent interviews without patronage; thirdly, clear criteria for candidates; and fourthly, credible applicants. I believe that, if those tests were passed, an appointed Member would have credibility. For the reasons that I set out earlier in my speech, if candidates who stand for election cannot pass the test (again, mentioned earlier), I do not believe that they will have the same credibility as an appointed Member. I hope that these matters will receive appropriate consideration.
7.7 p.m.
Lord St John of Fawsley: My Lords, it is a very great privilege to take part in this crucial constitutional debate, which is the first that we have been able to have on the Wakeham report. I start by congratulating the noble Baroness the Leader of the House on the irenic tone of her opening remarks. No one in their right senses would expect a government to come forward with firm decisions on a Royal Commission before there had been a debate in both Houses of Parliament. That would be quite contrary to the spirit of our constitution and would draw down upon the head of any government that tried it condign punishment. Therefore, I thank her for her statesmanlike—perhaps I should say "stateswomanlike"—approach, for her analysis and for her positive tone.
Even more to be congratulated is my noble friend Lord Wakeham. He has done a quite superlative job and has produced a constitutional equivalent of the Bayeaux Tapestry. Everyone has got in, everything has got in and everyone gets a turn! As I look at the members of that committee—the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford, my noble friend Lord Hurd, Mr Gerald Kaufman and Professor Anthony King—I am amazed that they could agree on anything, except possibly the propriety, present or prospective, of their own ennoblement. It is an amazing achievement of my noble friend that he has produced an agreed report.
I say at once how much I welcome the idea in the report that a peerage should be separated from the right to a seat in this House. One of the greatest weaknesses of the life peerage in recent years has been conferring it on people who never had any intention of coming here; who had no time to come here because it had been turned into an honour. It was not, for them, becoming part of the constitution. It is a brilliant and original idea which we should certainly seek to take further.
The title of the document is A House for the Future. The old House is largely gone. I opposed the changes as strongly as I could, but what is done cannot be undone. The only thing that I regret in the report is that there is no recommendation that perhaps a link with the
972
hereditary system might still be maintained on historic grounds by a representation of hereditary Peers. This is the point from which we start. It is no good looking back. We should remember what happened to Lot's wife: she looked back and she turned into some species of condiment.
A major point that I wish to make is that I rejoice that this report rejects the idea of a wholly elected House. I am delighted to hear that the Minister also shares that view. In the words of my dear and, alas, late friend, Lord Tonypandy, "Alleluia!"—because, as Bagehot pointed out as long ago as 1861 in his great work The English Constitution, that would be a recipe for a constitutional and political disaster. No agreement could possibly be achieved with the other place on such a course. If we were to embark on it, that would be the end of the whole matter and in the long term it would be deadlock and paralysis if anything came about, as they have in the United States.
As regards elected members—this miserable contribution suggested by the report—I reject it utterly. We are left with the fetlocks of the backend of a pantomime horse. They would be merely a complicating factor. They would have no deep significance and by their very presence they would undermine the legitimacy of those appointed here. So I hope that that idea will disappear.
It is not the task of the Opposition to draw up a paper constitution. It is our duty to make comments and to make, I hope, constructive criticisms. Patronage is a very important issue which will be discussed, as also is the question of appointed Peers. There has been a great deal of humbug and hypocrisy in the discussion of the issue even by our national standards. Patronage, power, departs the minute it is exercised. It is a lusus naturae. It is a will-o-the-wisp. As soon as the power is conferred it is gone. So, provided only that Peers remain independent, much of the objection to patronage is lost.
Your Lordships need not be worried about overcrowding, because every life Peer is a dead Peer. In due course we shall all go to our reward, whether it be up there or down there or, if I may say so in the presence of the serried ranks of right reverend Prelates who have subscribed to the 39 Articles, more likely in the middle somewhere. That is where we shall go.
The prime ministerial power of appointment has pertained to every Prime Minister since Walpole. Some have abused it. Lloyd George abused it very seriously; others were models of rectitude. I believe that we can justifiably expect a Prime Minister to behave in an honourable way in this regard. There are restraints, conventions, Cabinet colleagues and the claims of other parties and public opinion. If there is anyone here who believes that they should not be here because they are not worthy of the honour, I ask them to stand up and take a bow. There seems to be no movement.
Lord Richard: My Lords, will the noble Lord give way?
Lord St John of Fawsley: My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord has made the point.
Lord Richard: My Lords, the point is not whether there is a pool of people who are perfectly qualified to be nominated to come here. The complaint is that, for certainly 18 years when the noble Lord's party was in office, too many people from that pool went to that side of the House and an insufficient number from that pool came to this side of the House. It is not a reflection on the individual but on the party judgment that was made by the then Prime Minister.
Lord St John of Fawsley: My Lords, I believe that mistakes have been made in that regard. But I believe that a much bigger mistake was made by the then government in bringing in to vote on controversial issues backwoodsmen who never normally appeared here. That did more to undermine confidence in this House than anything else.
I press on. I speak of my own experience. I shall tell your Lordships briefly the history of my appointment to this House. I have no fear of breaching any confidence because the best way of keeping a secret is to insert it into a speech to your Lordships. When I decided not to stand again, as a member of the Cabinet I went to the Prime Minister to inform her that that was my intention. She did not exactly burst into tears, but expressed a seemly regret. Then she said, "Well, Norman, would you like to go to the Lords?" "Prime Minister" I said, "What a good idea. I shall be delighted". That was that. I heard nothing for a year until a brown envelope came through the letterbox. I thought, "Oh heavens! another bill". I pushed it into my pocket without looking at it. I only found it later in the day, when I discovered to my horror that it was the biglietto regarding recommendation to the Queen and ending with these sinister words: "If I hear nothing from you by Monday, I will not proceed further in this matter". I thought to myself, "Shall I commit the reply to the post?". That would be madness, so I took it around to No. 10 in person.
Did that make me Maggie's minion? She would be very surprised to hear that. My noble friend was here today. She appeared to be in wonderful form. I am delighted that she is in the best of health and spirits. I was very pleased to see her here. I was never "one of us" and I am never likely to be "one of us". I do not know whether that is grammatical, but it is the truth. I always tended to be a gang of one. The only effect of my translation here was that I thought inwardly of the noble Baroness not as the Blessed Margaret, but as Saint Margaret.
The point I am making is that I was not asked to make any promises or commitments of any kind and that was the convention which was exercised in creating the peerage. I look with grave doubts upon this appointments commission which seems to be commanding such widespread report. It was the real Cardinal Wolsey who said,
"Put not your trust in princes".
and I would say to your Lordships, "Put not your trust in appointments commissions". As my dear mother would have said, "Who are these people?" In language
974
which all your Lordships will be familiar with, "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" I will not insult your Lordships by translating it.
When I was chairman of the Royal Fine Arts Commission, I dealt directly with Downing Street. We never had any trouble or difficulty in getting good people. Once this ghastly appointments commission appeared, it was nothing but trouble, inefficiency, delay and getting the wrong people. Finally, when I asked Sir Len Peach who were the members advising on this exercise in transparent government, I was told that the names were confidential. Let us keep a wary eye on this and question it.
The only other comment that I wish to make is that I was delighted that the Church of England is to be represented. I am not a member of the Church of England. I find its theology a singular combination of opacity and fragmentation. It is our national church and I congratulate my noble friend Lord Wakeham on having the theological knowledge, unsuspected by me, to use as the basis for the Church of England's claim to be here the number of baptised persons, not the number of communicants. Fifty per cent of the population is baptised into the Church of England and it is that which makes for membership of the church and it is that, if I may presume to address the right reverend Prelates on their Bench, which confers legitimacy upon them. I hope the Catholic bishops will appear in some form as well as the leaders of other faiths.
We have no constitution. As Disraeli said in that great speech in the Crystal Palace, "We have institutions", and it is our duty in this House to seek to reach a consensus of all Members here on the way forward. The other consensus we must achieve is a consensus with the other place. There have been some rather unflattering remarks regarding the other place which I, as a former Leader of that place, rather resent. I can only say that you do not gain the support for a consensus by letting off peashooters to hit in painful places the people you are trying to attract towards you. Therefore, if we want the Commons to co-operate in this very great enterprise, I think a certain amount of diplomacy will not be out of place.
We are embarked now on a great cause: to provide a second Chamber which will protect the rights and liberties of the subject and which will perform the balancing function that is essential in a true democracy. It is as great a task as has ever faced this House. It will need patience, it will need much discussion, it will need tolerance and it will need insight. Having listened to this debate, I feel we have got off to an excellent start.
7.24 p.m.
Lord Thomas of Swynnerton: My Lords, what a pleasure it is to follow the noble Lord, Lord St John of Fawsley.
The House has before it what seems to me to be an extremely well written and interesting document which faces most of the relevant problems and usually does so deftly. It is particularly good in discussing the

975
matters which it was not really set up to discuss, namely the effective working of this House. Chapter 16 on procedures seemed to me a particularly good example of that—a particularly reassuring chapter, in fact. I think the report is entirely right to emphasise, by using the word several times, that the House of Lords in the future needs to be confident. It correctly records that, in recent years, one of the weaknesses of your Lordships' House was that it lacked authority and indeed confidence. I am very glad to see that, on page 30, the report reminds us that one of the essential actions of this House should be to make the Government think again, even against their will. Let us hope that all governments, including this one, will at least remember that phrase in this report.
The quotation from The Federalist Papers on page 28 warning against irregular passions seizing hold of the lower House—of course, The Federalist Papers concerned the lower house in the United States but the point was made in relation to what might happen in this country—seemed to me an appropriate quotation, though I regret that the report said the commission would not go that far.
As a very poor attender in this House and a very erratic "party man", I am very glad, despite what the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, said with such force, to see so many references to the value of part-time Members and to the idea that the influence of parties should be minimised, which is mentioned specifically on page 3 of the report. I am glad also to see that there is a reference to the desirability that those affiliated to parties should be commended if they vote on the merits of issues and exercise unfettered judgment.
Like most noble Lords, I like the idea—a very radical idea incidentally—that no one party should dominate this House. It is a very radical idea since it has never really been an aim of any government in the past. Equally, I approve the idea that everyone who is in this House should be treated equally however they have arrived here, as was always the case in the past. Hereditary Peers and life Peers all felt more or less equal when they where in this Chamber and that really should not be too difficult to arrange in future, even if there are some elected Members as well as nominated Members.
I support the commission's thinking that we ought to have a dedicated European Question Time, and I was also convinced by the commission's case against giving the House of Lords a special constitutional position. The evidence that the commission consulted other second chambers outside this country was comforting. Just as Palladio's architecture may be said to have greatly influenced the hereditary peerage in the 18th century, so it is very comforting to think that continental legislators may have helped the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham.
However, I have some minor criticisms and one or two larger ones. First, someone should point out that the photographs in the report are pointless where they are not lamentable, although perhaps the sight of
976
where the Welsh Assembly meets is desirable since it is difficult to imagine an uglier legislative assembly in the world.
To place all the testimony and evidence on a CD-ROM is a step much too far towards modernisation. Why should there not be a publication at least of all the testimony and evidence put forward by Members of this House or the other place?
Naturally, as a historian, I believe that there should have been a historian on the committee. A political scientist in the shape of Professor King is not quite enough. I do not suppose that it is enough for the noble Lord, Lord St John, either. There should certainly be a historian on the appointments commission, if that is established. A historian might have avoided the commission thinking that in the past the regions of this kingdom were not properly represented. After all, what were the country MPs doing all those years ago?
I agree with my noble friend Lord Ezra that it would have been helpful if the commission had felt able, at least in passing, to touch on the possibility that in the future there may have to be some consideration of the constitutional position of the other place.
The commission applauds the Salisbury Convention but it might have stressed the reverse and pointed out that your Lordships should feel perfectly free to act as they wish if a Bill was introduced that was not anticipated in a manifesto in the previous election.
My more important complaints are that, first, the report does not dwell at all on the fact that one important role of this House which remains after the Parliament Act 1911 is a veto over any extension of the life of a Parliament proposed in another place. In my submission to the commission, I suggested that that provision should be strengthened by providing that the Law Lords must vote in favour of any such provision for it to be approved.
Generally, in my submission, I was in favour of a mixed House—some elected and some nominated—just as the commission decided. But I said in my submission—and I still stick to this idea—that the regionally elected Members should have a specific purpose; namely, to maintain the unity of the realm. Secondly, I thought that some consideration should be given to electing some Members to ensure the effective collaboration of this country with the European Union, assuming that we remain members of it.
If those purposes were laid down specifically, in a direct way, that might assist us in knowing what those new Members would be doing and might, perhaps, do something to satisfy my noble friend Lord Dahrendorf, who pointed out some of the weaknesses implicit in an election.
In my submission, I agreed that those Members might be elected at the same time as the European elections although I now think that, whatever the commission may say about the matter, it may very well be that we could reconsider some method of indirect election, as is done on many occasions on the Continent. Also, if those Members are able to find electorates ready to vote for them, I do not see why they should be limited to serving for 15 years.

977
Like the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, I believe that half the Members—not a smaller proportion—should be elected. I really wonder whether it is right to assume so readily that a House of Lords so composed would so easily risk "gridlock". That word was used by the noble Baroness the Leader of the House and by the noble Baronesses, Lady Dean and Lady Young. The noble Lord, Lord St John, will correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that there was no consistent gridlock in the 19th century in this country when the two Chambers of Parliament were roughly equal. And there is not always gridlock in countries where there are two elected Chambers at the present time.
I turn from the elected Members to the nominated Members. How should those be properly decided? The Wakeham Commission report recommends that all such nominated Members would come here as a result of a nomination by a body of eight appointments commissioners who will choose people who are representative of the nation. That is obviously a much more complicated task than it seems when it is put as simply as that, as, indeed, the commission recognised. Yet, on page 3, it is stated that it was thought desirable to create a new category of people who would serve here. How extremely alarming that sounds. But I am not convinced that that has been thought through very carefully or whether the undesirability of that was realised.
For example, the report did not emphasise at all how much work is done in this House at present, or has always been done in this House, by people who have served in another place, either as Cabinet Ministers, junior Ministers or just as Members of Parliament. About one-quarter of the speakers here today, as your Lordships will be aware, were once Members of Parliament. In the admirable debate on foreign affairs introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, on 12th January, there were four former Foreign Secretaries and the debate included a very remarkable exchange between two of them.
Therefore, in that regard, I do not believe that the commission has thought as deeply as it might have done. I believe that the way ahead is slightly different. The commission said in one uncharacteristically ugly piece of prose that it is difficult to find a formal system of vocational or interest group representation. Yet it should not be too difficult to find a list of people who have occupied important, interesting, crucial or even just curious positions in British public life.
Of course, as the commission mentions on one or two occasions, minority ethnic or religious leaders should be welcomed much more than they have been in the past. But, all the same, it should be quite easy to work out a list of people who are not necessarily just the great and the good who would make good contributions here, as they have in the past. It is very easy to think of them—trade union leaders, vice-chancellors, headmasters, Nobel Prize winners, industrialists, leaders of small trade unions, ex-Cabinet Ministers and ex-Chiefs of Staff, without question. How many of us have not listened with
978
admiration to speeches from such distinguished retired and gallant noble Lords in the past? We already have the Law Lords and the Bishops.
All that may seem to suggest a formalisation of what we already have. It might be criticised by some as being close to a corporate approach, but guidelines suggesting vocational origins would be extremely helpful. I do not see why the Prime Minister of the day should not be concerned, as are the rest of the Cabinet, with considering the guidelines. Prime Ministers have not been treated well in this debate, or indeed, in the report. But in the past they have often made interesting, unexpected and even eccentric nominations to this House. The requirement for a slice or two of eccentricity or the unexpected is something which an appointments commission, which is likely to be grave as well as good and great, might perhaps tend to overlook.
7.40 p.m.
Lord Norton of Louth: My Lords, as we have heard several times, the justification for having a second Chamber is that it contributes something to the political system. In other words, it adds value. If it replicates what the first Chamber does or fails to carry out the tasks ascribed to it, it is superfluous. If it conflicts regularly with the first Chamber, it is objectionable. What flows from that and is most appropriate to the United Kingdom is a second Chamber which is complementary to the first, fulfilling functions which are specific to or usefully filled by a second Chamber without challenging fundamentally the democratic legitimacy of the first.
The Royal Commission has done an invaluable job in identifying the functions of a second Chamber. Those functions build on the existing functions of this House, which is entirely appropriate and justifiable. Your Lordships' House adds value to the political process. It carries out functions which complement the first Chamber. Those roles are fulfilled well. In some respects they could be fulfilled better and there is a case, as the Royal Commission recognises, for expanding the House's roles.
For the moment, however, the important point is that the present second Chamber adds value to the political process. That can be demonstrated empirically, not least in terms of the legislative revision undertaken by your Lordships' House. It can be shown that this House is able to engage in dialogue—more often than not, constructive dialogue—with government. The value added by this House can be attributed in large measure to the nature of its composition and procedures. It derives from its recognised political inferiority to the elected Chamber; the experience and expertise of its life membership; its self-regulating procedure; the absence of a salary; and, equally importantly, the absence of a membership ambitious for government office.
This House adds value in a way which maintains the fundamental accountability of the political process. Elections to the House of Commons determine which party is to form the government. There is then one

979
body—the party in government—responsible for public policy and one body answerable to the electors at the next election. Election day, in the words of Sir Karl Popper, constitutes Judgment Day. Once there is an elected second Chamber, the fundamental accountability of the political system is immediately or eventually destroyed. An elected second Chamber is unlikely to rest content with limited powers. Even if it has restricted powers, supporters of the decisions it takes will claim a legitimacy for it equal to that of the first Chamber.
Opponents of my argument, including the speaker who is to follow me, claim that an elected second Chamber is justified because it will be democratic. That does not follow. It follows only if one defines democracy solely in terms of process; that is, election. However, if democracy is defined as the translation of electors' wishes into legislative output, an elected second Chamber is not democratic. Indeed, one can envisage a situation in which it would be profoundly undemocratic, facilitating a stalemate preventing the popular will from being enacted. On that definition, the present arrangements provide for a democratic political system with the will of the electors being channelled clearly and unambiguously through a single elected Chamber.
We should, therefore, he working towards a second Chamber which builds on the strength of this House. That is the basic strength of the Royal Commission's report. I welcome the vast majority of its recommendations. I endorse wholeheartedly its proposals to extend the committee work of the House. That allows the House to play to its strengths.
I differ with the report principally in two respects. First, like many noble Lords, I do not accept the case for a part-elected element. In a part-elected Chamber, one would be creating in one House the relationship that presently exists between the two Houses; that is, an elected and politically superior Chamber and a non-elected and hence politically inferior Chamber. It is a recipe for instability, with votes being analysed in terms of who made the difference to the outcome: the elected or the non-elected Members? That situation will apply regardless of the size of the elected element. If one has a part-elected Chamber, then one is conceding a certain legitimacy to the part that is not elected; otherwise one would opt for a wholly elected chamber. So why have any elected element? Election of some Members would not only generate two tiers of Members, it would also generate pressures, not least for salaried full-time politicians, that would challenge some of the elements that contribute towards the present value of the second Chamber.
The claim that partial election would add some element of democratic authority to the Chamber is not sustainable when pitted alongside the disadvantages of partial election. Regional elections strike me as disasters waiting to happen. It is not so much a question of the candidates who would be drawn to them as the problem in terms of electors. What on earth would draw electors to the polls? For what would they be voting? I cannot see what incentive there is for
980
electors to go to the polls to elect such people on a regional basis. Coming from Lincolnshire, I cannot see what incentive there would be to vote for people who would claim to be representing the East Midlands, a territory with which one feels no affinity at all.
I differ also from the report in its recommendations for an appointments commission. Under the report's recommendations, the appointments commission will be an extraordinarily powerful body—arguably too powerful. In my submission to the commission, I advocated instead the creation of two statutory appointments commissions. I believe that to do so would deal with the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra. One commission would deal with political nominees, allowing the parties to put forward their candidates for lists of working Peers. The other commission would comprise independent members and would be proactive in seeking nominations and putting forward names to the Crown. It would seek out those, in many walks of life, who have contributed to the life of the nation and who could contribute something to the work of this House.
The creation of two commissions is linked to a proposal that would prevent cronyism and do so without injecting an element of election. Under my proposal, there would be a link between the two appointment processes: for every nomination under the political route, there would be two under the independent, or non-political, route. That would prevent the Prime Minister of the day packing the second Chamber and, indeed, would constitute something of a deterrent to creating large numbers of Peers.
For reasons of time, I do not propose to develop the other points I made in my submission. Suffice it to say that I welcome the report of the Royal Commission. It has got it about right in 90 per cent of its analysis and recommendations. I differ from it principally, but not exclusively, in respect of the two points I have outlined. The fact that I have concentrated on those two points should not detract from the fact that the report is an excellent, thorough and, in most respects, compelling document.
I conclude by addressing the position of the Government. My own argument derives from an essentially Tory view of the British constitution. The second Chamber which I advocate fits squarely with the accountability fundamental to the Westminster system of government. I recognise that many who advocate an elected second Chamber do so on the basis of a liberal approach to the constitution. I do not endorse that approach, but I acknowledge that it is intellectually coherent. I can engage in debate with those who embrace that approach. However, it has been difficult to engage in debate with the Government because we have not known what approach they favour. We knew what they were against, but we did not know what they were for. Ministers regularly avoided answering my questions on what intellectually coherent approach to constitutional change they favoured.

981
Today, the Leader of the House has revealed the stance taken by the Government which, in broad terms, is the report of the Royal Commission. In some respects, it appears that the Royal Commission may have done the Government's thinking for them. How does that fit with the Government's approach to constitutional change? The noble Baroness spoke of an evolutionary approach. As a Conservative I am perfectly happy with an evolutionary approach, but the Government's approach to other constitutional changes is not evolutionary. The Government have treated changes in a discrete manner, each unrelated to the other changes that they have introduced. That is a stance that is intellectually unacceptable and constitutionally dangerous.
Given that, I invite the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General, in his reply, to explain how the Government's broad acceptance of the report of the Royal Commission fits in with their conception of constitutional change. What type of constitution do the Government want in place in, say, five or 10 years' time? The noble and learned Lord will respond to particular points, but I invite him to address the wider picture and tell us not only what the Government will do but also where they believe they are going.
7.51 p.m.
Lord Richard: My Lords, it is always a great pleasure to listen to the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth. Sometimes I understand him and I am happy to say that tonight is a good night. I followed most of his argument although he lost me a little on the democratic point. It seemed to emerge that, on his analysis, nominations are democratic and elections are not. That is not a proposition that we on the liberal wing of this argument would necessarily share.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, for the report that he and the Royal Commission have produced. They accomplished the task quickly and, within their terms of reference, they were thorough. It is a good and detailed analysis of the issues involved. Having said that, most noble Lords have gone on to express their reservations on parts of the report. Before I do that, I shall say one or two words about the parts of the report that I like.
First, I was pleased to see that there was a total rejection of indirect elections and of functional constituencies, a point made earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Hurd. Secondly, I was pleased that there was an acceptance of at least the principle of direct elections, so that some part of this second Chamber will be directly elected. In a sense, that was a slightly rudimentary proposal. I admire the skill of the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, in achieving a unanimous report. One way of achieving that is not to ask for a decision or a conclusion but to express three options on the type of democratic result sought. One was for 65 elected Members; the second was for 87; the third was for 195; and then the noble Lord said that the majority of the Royal Commission seemed to favour 87, so the Royal Commission was not totally unanimous on that part of the exercise.
982
I welcome also what the report said about the proposed extensions of the role of your Lordships' House, of the constitutional committee, the human rights committee and the treaties committee. Those proposals all seem sensible. I also believe that the proposal made in the report with regard to delegated legislation is one that deserves serious consideration. I have certain problems with the way in which it is proposed that this House would deal with delegated legislation, but I am coming to accept the principle that there may be a case for letting the other place reconsider statutory instruments.
So far I have little quarrel with the report, but we must start by asking ourselves what is the aim of the whole exercise. What are we trying to create? Surely we are trying to create an effective second Chamber. For a second Chamber to be effective it seems to me that, first, it must be composed differently from the first Chamber; secondly, it must enjoy sufficient powers to require a government to think again; and, thirdly, and crucially, it must have sufficient legitimacy in the eyes of the public so that it can use those powers.
I believe most people would agree that the House of Lords must be different from the House of Commons. I entirely agree that it should have different powers and a different composition. I agree that it must have clearly defined and sufficient powers in order to carry out its job. I also agree that it must have public legitimacy, but how does one obtain that public legitimacy?
On that point, it seems to me that there are two alternatives. Members are either elected or appointed. Either way one runs into great problems. If the House were to be wholly elected, we should lose the independence and expertise of the Cross-Benchers and we should risk future problems with the other place. If the Members are appointed, the legitimacy of the House will be considerably weakened and it will continue to be questioned. The obvious answer is a combination of the two: a percentage that is elected and a percentage that is nominated. By a somewhat tortuous route, that was the conclusion reached by the Royal Commission.
The House will know that I favour a two-thirds: one-third split: two-thirds of the House being directly elected and one-third being nominated, with the nominated portion being the Cross-Benchers. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Swynnerton, read out a list of the types of people who may be available to become Members of the second Chamber. In my view, most of those should be nominated and most should sit on the Cross Benches. I believe that one of the distinguishing features of the reformed House, and one that would distinguish it from the other place, is the fact that one-third of its Members would be nominated and genuinely independent, unlike the mock independence that was sometimes claimed for the previous Chamber. They would be genuinely distinguished and therefore genuinely able to bring their expertise and distinction to bear.
It is quite clear that the Royal Commission was conscious of not upsetting the House of Commons. Therefore, it would not support a majority elected

983
House. It is equally clear that it did not want a House that was predominantly nominated by the Prime Minister. So there are two alternatives, neither of which the Royal Commission seems to find acceptable.
To fill that gap, the Royal Commission proposed an appointments commission that would remove the power of nomination from the Prime Minister and from the political parties. That independent commission would, as I understand it, appoint for a 15-year term those Members whose terms could be renewable by the appointments commission itself. Existing life Peers would remain, but they would be reminded, as the report delicately puts it, of their right not to attend. To me that is a slightly fanciful proposition. Most life Peers have visions of trotting in to the House of Lords in their mid-80s with their zimmerframes in order to participate in the affairs of the nation. It may be that some would like to be reminded of their right not to attend, but I suspect that they would be a minority.
The flaw in the proposition of an appointments commission is that it is highly unlikely, to put it at its lowest, that any government would accept an independent appointments commission of such comprehensiveness and independence. That would involve a renunciation of patronage by the government of the day and the acceptance by that government that, however popular they may be in the country, they can no longer control the composition of the second Chamber in the way in which they could previously.
It is all very well to have guidelines, and I am all in favour of them. It is said that 20 per cent of the Members should be Cross-Benchers. I do not feel that that is enough. It is said that at least 30 per cent should be women and 30 per cent should be men. Somebody said to me when that was said, "What about the other 40 per cent?". Then the guidelines in the report say,
"The Appointments Commission would he required to secure an overall political balance matching the political opinion of the country as a whole, as expressed in votes cast at the most recent general election".
no party to have an overall majority.
What does that mean and what is it asking governments to accept? First, it is asking governments to accept that an independent commission should be responsible for securing an overall political balance. That is an extremely doubtful proposition. Secondly, it is accepting a mechanism whereby when governments change, there will be an almost automatic ratchet effect. The Royal Commission obviously thought of that because the one thing that is missing in its report is any cap on the size of the second Chamber. If we had a succession of general elections at which there were changes at fairly short intervals, the ratchet effect on the membership of this House would mean that it would be far too over-populated and far too unwieldy.
The Royal Commission dealt with the problem of lack of legitimacy by seeking to use the independence of the appointments commission as justifying a system of appointment and not election. It is a very British approach in which we say, "Do not bother too much
984
about this. Trust the appointments commission to do democracy's job for it". That is really not very good. I see the noble Lord, Lord Hurd, getting restless.
Lord Hurd of Westwell: My Lords, I am following the noble Lord's argument with great care. But most people, if the proposition were put to them, would prefer to trust an independent appointments commission to get the political balance right than the Prime Minister of the day.
Lord Richard: My Lords, arguably they may prefer to trust the electoral process rather than the individual whim of the Prime Minister or the opinion of the appointments commission. That has always been my argument.
All I am saying is that it is clear that the Royal Commission, when it found itself in this difficulty, said, "We will get over the problem of lack of legitimacy by having an independent appointments commission, and its independence will rectify the lack of legitimacy that there is in the system of appointments". That is the way in which I put the argument.
We should start by asking ourselves whether the reform strengthens Parliament as a whole. With a dominant executive of whatever party, a second Chamber with the legitimacy from time to time to ask the Government to think again is fundamental to the health of Parliament as a whole. It would also strengthen the House of Commons.
The House of Commons should clearly remain the dominant and superior House. It should make and unmake governments; it should control their finances and have the right ultimately to secure its legislation. I have no problem with any of that. The second Chamber—this is the crux of the argument—must have at least a majority of its Members directly elected on a different voting system from that used for the House of Commons. The House with a majority of either nominated or indirectly elected Members would lack the democratic legitimacy and accountability properly to perform its central function.
Let me deal with one argument we occasionally hear in this connection; that is, what does democracy matter? Why are we insisting on elections? Elections are not necessarily the best way of doing things; but they are the normal way. It is the way the country accepts. It is the basis in our society, indeed in most western countries, of securing representative government. Why not here? What is so special about the second Chamber of the British Parliament? Is it the case that somehow or other, when they get to the doors of this Chamber, the democratic principles which apply outside, which apply to the other Chamber, principles which we proselytise as hard as we can to the rest of the world, cease to have that legitimacy? I do not believe it. The argument is not one against democracy; it is an argument about the relationship between this Chamber and the one down the corridor. That can be dealt with in other ways.

985
The power of the two Houses and the respective standing of their elected Members should reflect the differences in their functions. It is a total myth that a proper balance between the two Houses is impossible within an unwritten constitution. The balance can and should be defined in legislation—in concordats and procedures—agreed between the two Houses.
Various Members of your Lordships' House have said in the course of this debate that the reform presents a rare opportunity. That is a view I share. I am anxious that that rare opportunity should not be missed. Although the Royal Commission goes some way down the road I wish to travel, it does not go far enough; it does not go fast enough. I should like to see a more democratic system for the second Chamber.
8.5 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, it is an enormous privilege to speak after the noble Lord, Lord Richard. He has thought more about this subject than most people in this House. I have read with admiration what he has written about it. However, I am not sure that I can go along with what he has just said.
Like most speakers, I admire greatly the work of the commission. I consider it an excellent base from which to proceed with the reforms. But I take issue in two respects. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, has left the Chamber because he might have been interested in one of them.
One question I want to consider is how to ensure that the second Chamber has at least some legitimacy, particularly in the eyes of the people in the four countries that make up the United Kingdom. The other point, which, strangely, has not been raised, is whether it is possible now to include, as the commission suggests, the Law Lords as Members of the reformed House and what we can do about that.
Ever since I became a life Peer in 1982 I have felt that our parliamentary system called for a much stronger second Chamber, one perceived by the electorate as being adequately legitimate to do the job that that electorate felt it had to do. In modern circumstances, the electorate knows that the House of Commons cannot do it alone. Until recently, I felt in my simple way that the only solution was to move to an entirely elected Chamber, along with some constitutional mechanism to avoid deadlock between it and the House of Commons. Since taking part in various discussions in Scotland over the consultation period, and since reading and discussing the Royal Commission's report, I have come to agree with my noble friends, Lord Waddington and Lord Norton, and the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf.
The legitimacy of the House and the satisfaction it gives in all parts of the United Kingdom would not be best achieved by elections, either to an all-elected House or partly elected House. Quite apart from whether an all-elected revising Chamber would work in our system, the public would not welcome it in principle. They are, alas, none too sure about what they see of the all-elected House of Commons and are certainly not seeking a replica.
986
But would people across the United Kingdom be helped in identifying with the new House if it was part-elected, either in one of the ways identified in the report or through having even more elected people, as my noble friend Lord Strathclyde proposed? I wonder for one simple reason. I try to imagine how such an arrangement would appear in Scotland, for example.
Under models A and B in the report, as I understand it, the Scots would find themselves voting only once in every 15 years. If one was 17½ years-old when elections to the second Chamber took place, one would be 32½ years-old before one had a chance to vote. I doubt if that would give much satisfaction or sense of ownership to people in Scotland or, indeed, to anyone in any other part of the United Kingdom. Under model C, the frequency of elections would be a more satisfying five years, but that model would produce a much more party political Chamber. That, I believe, is precisely what most people do not relish.
I believe that in recent years, largely as a result of watching television, the public have come to feel that people are appointed to a revising Chamber because they know what they are talking about and because of their expertise and experience. They have a legitimacy of their own. I hesitate to use the word "legitimacy" after listening to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, but I believe that it is the right word to use in this context.
The main worry among the public is not the fact that Members would be appointed but how they would be appointed. There is scope for corruption or cronyism and, most important, there is the question of whether one's own part of the United Kingdom is or would be adequately represented.
Scots would prefer a wholly appointed House, but with a statutory appointments committee. I say this despite what was said about such committees by my noble friend Lord St John of Fawsley. I believe that people would prefer to see in place a statutory appointments committee required by law to maintain a stated percentage of Members—say, in the case of Scotland, 10 per cent of the whole—who would he the expert and experienced representatives for Scotland. It could be a separate appointments committee or a United Kingdom body charged with the necessary statutory duties. If an overall system could be devised for the United Kingdom into which that could be fitted, I believe that Scots, at least, would welcome it and identify with it.
Furthermore, should in due course the Scottish Parliament find the need for an independent revising Chamber to examine its legislation, such a Westminster Chamber, using its Scots members, might well be acceptable. I suggest that elections be left out of the arrangements and that a statutory appointments system be carefully designed to give a sense of ownership and legitimacy to all parts of the United Kingdom.
I do not believe that the new appointments should be phased in. That is the greatest possible mistake and is only a selling point for noble Lords in the House at

987
the moment. There should be a fresh start. The appointments commission should decide whether any noble Lords in the House at present should continue.
On the question of the Law Lords, I wish I could agree with the Royal Commission that they should continue, as at present, to act judicially and as Members of the second Chamber. However, surely the writing is already on the wall. The skilful and helpful way in which they wear their two hats at present, which brings so much to the enrichment of our work, is unlikely to be sustainable for much longer, given the conflicts of interest which will increasingly arise as the Human Rights Act begins to take effect in England. When reading The Times the other day, I noticed that, even in little Guernsey, where it must be difficult to find separate wearers for all the different hats in the legal process, the European Court of Human Rights found that if a judge had a legislative role it could affect his or her impartiality. It seemed that this was not only a judgment about Guernsey. Rather, it was a general statement.
In any case, given the effect of the Human Rights Act, surely it would now be a mistake to include the Law Lords or any sitting judges in the new Chamber. Better, sadly, to ensure by way of the appointments commission that an adequate number of experienced lawyers—not judges—of both jurisdictions of the United Kingdom are appointed as members of the second Chamber. Furthermore, it should be required by law that any Member who becomes a judge or a Scots sheriff or, indeed, one suspects, even a magistrate, should resign. It would be interesting if, in his reply to this enormous debate, the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General could make a short comment about this. A few days ago, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor replied to a Question put by the noble Lord, Lord Desai, on the subject of Guernsey. From his reply, I wondered whether the noble and learned Lord really believed what he was saying about his own position. I suppose I was wrong, but I should be interested to hear what the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General has to say on this point.
8.16 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: My Lords, I am sure that we are all immensely grateful for the work done by the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, and all the members of the commission. The development of our constitution has been a matter of profound concern to the Church in our nation over many centuries. Bishops have had variable experiences in relation to it. In 1832 they were stoned on the streets for resisting change and in 1688 seven of them were sent to the Tower of London for seeking to defend our constitution against the personal agenda of the monarch of the time. However, unlike the bishops of 1832, I believe that we should not resist change, and like the bishops in 1688, we ought to be defending the principles on which our constitution has been built.
988
The noble Baroness the Leader of the House has said that our constitution develops by evolutionary rather than revolutionary means. I am sure that that is right. It is our custom to build on past experience, and where we need to change we are careful to ensure that the best of what we inherit is not lost as we chart a new constitutional course.
At the heart of this matter is the principle of representation. I should like to put that comment alongside the very interesting remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, about legitimacy. It is the principle of government, held to account by a parliament, which truly represents the people of this country. As my noble friend the Bishop of Durham has said, Bishops sit here in that role and on the basis of that principle. We are not here to represent the Church of England. We are here to represent the common good in the spiritual values and moral concerns which underpin the life of our whole nation. That can and should only continue to be the case if the people of our country are content with it. All of us are here in the role of servant to the common good of the people. If it were thought, in this age of secular materialism, that the voice of those who speak from a spiritual foundation is not needed or welcome, then so be it. The continuance of the Lords spiritual, in whatever shape or form, needs to be by open understanding of what can be expected from such a contribution in Parliament.
At the heart of representation is the democratic process. A House which is formed by means which are not exclusively electoral must complement but not override the other place, whose authority is rooted in the universal ballot. If we accept that fundamental principle—and there has been wide acceptance of it in this House both this afternoon and this evening—we will have a sound basis for building on the tradition of a House formed in other and complementary ways. I hope that we agree that the electoral process does not exhaust the meaning of representation. Indeed, electoral representation in our modern world risks the tyranny of the majority. The meaning of "democracy" is not a means by which the majority impose their will upon a reluctant minority.
Consensus has been quite widely mentioned in today's debate; indeed, it has been an unpopular word in political dialogue in recent years. But we need to recover it and root it in its fundamental, moral principle, which is concerned with the way in which the many voices of our people come together. Despotism, even under the guise of democratic procedures, is dangerous to our common life and Parliament is the means by which we resist it.
We have only to look at how our elective democracy works in our western culture, and in our own history in particular, to recognise the point. The electoral system, held so much under the control of the political parties, delivers a Parliament in which the Whips are strong and the executive extremely powerful. Yet it is the duty of a representative Parliament to hold the executive to account. That is a struggle when such a large majority in the other place supports the Government. As noble Lords will be aware, the

989
Bishops in recent years have sometimes had to raise sharp and unpopular questions in the face of governments determined to carry forward a programme on the basis of the grip that they hold on the other Chamber, on the basis of their duty to be the voice of moral and spiritual concern for the whole nation.
When one looks at the Houses of our Parliament and asks how representative they are not only of the opinions of the people but also of the diversity of our culture and experience, many questions are bound to be raised. What about the balance of women and men, of people of different culture and creed, of young—dare I say this in this House?—as well as old people and of people from different social classes? In the modern world, these challenges become even harder the more contemporary politics leads to the professionalisation of our political life. They are important matters because it is a dangerous situation to have Parliament legislating for the people when important minorities or sections of the people are missing from its Chambers. All the voices of the people need to be here. I have been conscious on one or two occasions in our debates that the people we are talking about or legislating for are mainly outside our number and beyond our borders. The voiceless should have a voice in Parliament.
We should not be afraid of reform. There has to be confidence in the adequacy of the structure of how we get here, as well as in the quality of the work that we do when we are here. There have been questions about whether anything is going to happen at the end of all these discussions. The quietness of these times might tempt us to take these matters steadily; and, indeed, perhaps they are not quite so important. But the adequacy of our constitution and the confidence of our people in it become matters of immediate concern in times of difficulty and when the nation is under threat. Perhaps I may use a well-known New Testament image: it is when the storms come that the adequacy of the foundations of the structure is discovered. It is in good times that we need to take the action needed to ensure that the structure will stand amidst the certainty of the floods that even our futures will surely bring from time to time.
The noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, has served us well. We need to progress these matters by, first, establishing agreement about the values and principles. I, too, share in the welcome for the style in which this debate has been brought to us this afternoon. As we talk about values and principles, that includes what contribution those who speak on behalf of the spiritual estates of the realm might make to Parliament. Then we can look at the structure for reform and seek, if I may say so, to find consensus on the detail.
I do not know whether I dare say it at this hour of the evening, but we are just a few hours away from Ash Wednesday and the beginning of Lent. Judging by the pace at which this debate is proceeding, it seems that we might begin Lent in this Chamber. Our constitution has deep and long roots in the spiritual history of our people. At this season of the year, Christians are called to put behind them all that hinders our common life
990
and then, with courage, to accept the challenges that confront us and to make the changes needed for the future well-being of our Parliament and of our people.
8.26 p.m.
Lord Alderdice: My Lords, some little while ago this evening I received a note from the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway. In it he says:
"As most of what I wanted to say has already been said. I am not going to speak and shall so inform the Table".
I have only spoken once in your Lordships' House during the past 18 months or so, since undertaking responsibilities in another, and elected, Chamber. In the whole of that time I have not had a single Member come to me with that particular request—to withdraw his right to speak because all he intended to say had already been said. I have received many complaints from Members saying that they had not had the opportunity to speak, but never something of that kind. I mention this because it seems to me to be a striking characteristic of this place. No one here is making a speech in order to have a mention in the local press; or, at least, very few are doing so. Yet, in my experience as an elected representative of another assembly, I have to say that that is a pressing problem for all those who seek to be re-elected.
I wanted very much to speak in this debate because I was most impressed by the report of the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, and his colleagues. I was most impressed by the analysis and by many, if not entirely all, of the proposals. First, the commission looked at the role and purpose of your Lordships' House. Perhaps I may treat this in a slightly different way. If we raise our eyes a little—it never does any harm to do so, as the right reverend Prelates will undoubtedly tell us—we shall see around us in the Chamber our predecessors, the Barons, without whom the sovereign was unable to govern. Yes, the Barons had to be drawn together to provide advice; but, frankly, they provided support because they were the most powerful.
The Barons were most powerful because they had control of land and property. Indeed, because of that, they were able to hand on their land and property. The hereditary principle came into being largely because of that capacity to hand on through one's own line. The principle of hierarchy in social circles also developed because of the control of power, land, money, resources and people. Of course, after the Industrial Revolution the situation began to change because power began to reside not just in the control of land but also in the control of business, commerce, property and money. But it could still be handed on, so the hereditary principle remained valid.
However, the situation is changing. In the new age, it is information, communication and relationships that determine those who are powerful and influential—those without whom a government cannot govern. But those things cannot be passed on down a family line or by connection. The characteristic of such a society is not hierarchy but network. Therefore, it is quite appropriate that the composition of your Lordships' House should change to reflect those who have shown some capacity in their lives for

991
these matters—those who represent academic life, professional life, business life and, indeed, many of the other aspects of our life, not least the spiritual life and values of our community. However, that is something that will not be passed on. Therefore, those who are here for their lifetime are here in an appropriate capacity.
One of the key difficulties that has come before the commission—and before your Lordships as I have listened to the debate in your Lordships' House—is the question of legitimacy. There is some kind of notion that the only legitimacy is that of an electoral mandate. I think that those of us who have been involved in politics for a long time are susceptible to our own mythologies about how much the electoral mandate is persuasive to the people; it is not. Every opinion poll has shown that politicians do not have a particularly high standing in the community in comparison with those who have been successful in professional or academic life, or indeed, those who have shown themselves knowledgeable and to have expertise in, for example, single issue campaigning organisations. They are often much more influential and persuasive.
It is not when an elected politician criticises the Government that the people sit up; the people sit up when someone who has expertise, authority (and particularly a moral authority in the community) makes such a criticism. It seems to me that if we try to find some way to add an electoral legitimacy to your Lordships' Chamber we shall inevitably fail. It is not a question of percentages. The noble Lord, Lord Richard, suggested that a figure of two-thirds might do the trick. But then, of course, if the one-third who were independents were the ones who swung the vote, would it not be the case that the criticism would then arise that they had no right to do that because they did not have an electoral mandate? The problem is searching for legitimacy in an electoral mandate as though it were the only legitimacy. Of course, it is a legitimacy and a profoundly important one, but it is not the only one. There is a moral legitimacy of values and a legitimacy of expertise.
We do not feel that our judges lack legitimacy because we do not elect them. The problems in Northern Ireland would hardly be solved if we merely had more elections for everything. Would the Chief Constable have more legitimacy if he were an elected official in Northern Ireland? In those circumstances, one simply would not have a chief constable. We do not elect doctors. We do not elect professors by universal suffrage. Nevertheless, they have an authority which is real and legitimate and can have an influence that is usefully brought to bear on government.
It is not the case that all second Chambers throughout the whole of the rest of the world are elected. Relatively few second Chambers are Chambers completely elected by universal suffrage. It is not the case that the newest forms of government are always appointed by election and have separation of powers. The noble Lord, Lord Richard, is familiar with Europe where the Commission has both a
992
legislative and administrative role and is not elected. The truth is that in the new world these things are much more mixed and other legitimacies and authorities are brought to bear, not simply those of the electoral mandate, albeit that that is important in itself and should be recognised as such.
There will undoubtedly be those—perhaps among my colleagues—who would go along with what the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, said; namely, that a Liberal conviction must be that of pure election and representation of the people. Perhaps that is the case, but I throw myself on the mercy of William Ewart Gladstone, who was no mean Liberal and no mean Prime Minister of this country, who said that Liberalism was trust of the people tempered by prudence. Trust of the people is represented by the other place; prudence should be represented by your Lordships' House.
8.33 p.m.
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow a fellow Celt. I am sorry that we do not hear from the noble Lord more often due to his other commitments.
I join with others who have offered congratulations to my noble friend Lord Wakeham and to the members of the commission. I do so for a slightly different reason. I offer them congratulations on their dedication and their tenacity of purpose. I cannot offer them wholehearted congratulations on what they have produced, because I go along with only about 90 per cent of that.
My noble friend Lord Waddington made a speech this afternoon with practically every word of which I agreed. I shall return to that in a few minutes. I find myself in the same position as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, who did not speak because most of what he wanted to say had already been said. However, I call in aid the old political adage that if you have an important point you wish to get across, you must make it at least 10 times. I shall deal with that point in a few moments.
I differ from many people on my side of the House, in that I think that the Government handled the early part of this legislation in the proper way. I think they were right to approach this problem in two parts. What I have some doubt about is whether, if, as was indicated by the noble Baroness this afternoon, the Government were to go down the track of having an elected quota in this House, they would not put at risk much of what they profess to see as advantageous in this House.
I should like to counsel the Government on two issues. First, I suggest that it would be a great error to rush into stage two with a new Bill. That is not necessary. This interim House is functioning very well. I see no reason to panic over the second stage, although I can imagine that for a government who have introduced stage one it is natural to want to make progress with stage two in due course.
This interim House has proved itself to be independent minded. It has already defeated the Government on a number of occasions. That is not

993
unusual in this House. I remember that, when I first came here in 1983 as a Minister, I was appalled to find that Conservative Members quite openly and without any embarrassment at all walked into the opposition lobby on frequent occasions. I must have shown my irritation a little because our Chief Whip at that time, the noble Lord, Lord Denham, said to me, "Don't worry if you lose the odd amendment; that is the way this House works". I duly learned that that is how this House works. Members are "whipped" to attend but they cannot be "whipped" into a particular lobby. That is one of the great virtues of this House. Members of this House are not paid, and perhaps that is a good thing. I hope that the Government will bear that in mind when they move forward with legislation. They must not forget the old Scots saying, "He who pays the piper calls the tune". In this House that does not happen.
The second matter on which I wish to counsel the Government concerns the whole question of the composition of this House. I believe that the Wakeham report set out fairly three options as regards having a portion of the House elected. However, it did not point out the dangers of that course. I believe that, as regards the way in which this House works, it does not require an elected element. Indeed, I think it would in many ways be a positive handicap for it to go down that route. I believe that there are benefits in having a wholly nominated House. That the report is unanimous as regards that point does not necessarily indicate that there was unanimity on everything within the report.
Two different categories of Member have been suggested. I find it difficult to see how that could possibly be avoided. Even in some of the constitutional reforms we have undergone already, there tend to be two categories of member. Whether we like it or not, in Scotland, for example, the Scottish press constantly refers in a different way to elected members and to members who are not elected; it refers to the latter as "list members". That is discrimination.
The difficulty of having two different categories of Member in this House is that we could conceivably get elected Members not being content with the House of Lords, as they would see it, playing second fiddle to the House of Commons. They would constantly be looking for ways in which the powers of the House of Lords could be increased. They would consider themselves every bit as legitimate as Members of the House of Commons. For those reasons, it would be a mistake to follow that route.
I believe that there would be a further difficulty—that is, the difficulty of attracting candidates from the most suitable age group. It would be very difficult to find candidates, let us say, between the age of 35 and 50, who, approaching the peak of their career, would willingly give it up for perhaps a 12-year period in Parliament at the end of which it would be very difficult for them to resume their career at anything like the same level as they had left it.
So what will happen? Some noble Lords have suggested today that third-rate candidates would come to the House of Lords. I would not put it in quite
994
such strong terms, but I do not think that we would get the cream coming to the House of Lords, which is what we would be looking for if we were to have elected people. After all, let us not forget that among the life Peers in the House at present we have experts from all the professions, from business—we have entrepreneurs of one description and another—and we have those who were trade union kings and queens. Regrettably, that might not have been the case had they been asked to come forward at an earlier stage in their career because they would not have been able to sacrifice the time.
I think the weakness of the Wakeham report is that it has given three options none of which is wholly satisfactory. Before they move on this issue at all, I urge the Government to consider the virtues of having a wholly nominated Chamber. I believe that this is crucially important. If the Government do not do this, there is a real danger that, by introducing even a small number of elected Members, they will concede the principle. Once that principle is conceded, it will not be difficult to build up pressure over the years for the number to be extended.
The noble Baroness, Lady Dean, a member of the commission, made an interesting comment at the very end of her speech—certainly in her closing paragraph, if not her closing sentence. She had been talking about the number of people who might be elected to this House and she said that of course this could be increased at a future time. Therein lies the danger, in my view.
I very much hope that the Government will take on board what I have said, particularly about taking their time. The number of different views about the Wakeham report which have been expressed today indicate that, although the report may have been unanimous, opinions are by no means unanimous at the present moment. The longer the Government dwell on this before they come to a final conclusion, the better for all of us.
8.44 p.m.
Lord Sewel: My Lords, I join other noble Lords in welcoming the report and in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, and his colleagues on its production. I do so primarily because it has got the process of argument right. The report starts by looking at the functions and role of this House and goes on to talk about its composition. That is surely the right way round; the right way to address the issues that confront us.
Perhaps inevitably in recent times we have been more concerned with composition. We have been rather long on who is here and rather short on what we should be doing once we are here. The Wakeham report goes right to the centre of the issue of what the role and the function of the second Chamber should be in a parliamentary democracy. There can be little disagreement with the basic proposition that the role of the second Chamber is to scrutinise, to revise and to give the superior, predominant lower House an opportunity to think again. But it is not part of the

995
second Chamber's function to wilfully frustrate a government's legislative programme. There is a clear difference between scrutinising, revising and giving the opportunity to think again and the guerrilla tactics which can result in the frustration of the elected government's legislative programme.
So we come to a position where there is an interrelationship between composition and function. If we change the composition, I believe that we will inevitably change the effective functions and powers of your Lordships' House.
In the past the debate about reform has been couched very much in terms of legitimacy. In our political culture, that effectively means democratic legitimacy based on election. I am not convinced that democratic legitimacy necessarily sits well with the functions that we expect this House to perform. Such arguments—with which I agree—were well advanced by the noble Lords, Lord Norton of Louth, Lord Alderdice and, most recently, Lord Gray of Con tin.
The important point is not the legitimacy of the House but its authority. The two are different. The authority of the House, in terms of the functions we rightly expect it to perform, rests on the basis and the weight of argument founded upon the expertise and experience of the Members who constitute this House. It is not based on some kind of proportion of an elected democratic component.
I wonder also whether a House along the lines of the one advocated by the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, and his colleagues would make it possible for us to lose one of the great advantages of this House. It is possible under the present arrangements to bring into your Lordships' House, not career politicians, but people who can make a contribution to the public life of our country, in particular areas or for a particular time, and who can then slip back into relatively decent obscurity. We benefit from the kind of flexibility that allows us to bring people into public life for relatively short periods of time; for them to make a contribution; and then to say, "Thank you very much" and allow them to sink back. I wonder whether the type of House proposed by the Wakeham Commission would enable those advantages to persist.
Along with other noble Lords, I have an underlying concern about the introduction of a democratic element, partly because of the two-tier system that could be created. Those who had come to the House on the basis of an election would undoubtedly wish to advance the claim of superior democratic legitimacy. I do not accept the view that, once here, everyone would be the same. I am afraid that in the former House everyone used to play little tricks and do calculations as to who would have won and who would have lost if the hereditaries had been removed. The same would happen with an elected element. It would be a case of saying that the Government would have lost on the basis of the numbers of elected Peers rather than nominated Peers. That is a recipe for chaos and division.
996
What concerns me greatly is the way in which that kind of change would undoubtedly disturb the relationship between this House and the other place. We should not disturb that relationship unless we consciously and deliberately wish to do so. I am not convinced at this stage that the balance is wrong. I believe that this House is capable, on something like its present composition, of being an effective second Chamber, able to revise and scrutinise legislation and ask the government of the day to think again. I do not believe that that is dependent upon introducing a new, elected democratic element.
We are already in the process of redefining the nature of a new second Chamber. We are already at stage one. Inevitably, that means that we are redefining the way in which we work and the way in which things are done. We have had the recent example of the Leader of the Opposition, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, basically arguing that, because of the change in composition, the understanding on how to deal with secondary legislation should be put to one side under the present new arrangements. That may be right. I shall not argue against it. But as we go down the road of reform, it is important to recognise that this House works effectively—not necessarily because of conventions, but because of understandings and working arrangements. My wish is that the two Front Benches, through the usual channels, should work out what those proper new understandings and working arrangements are in this the so-called transitional House, and, if necessary, in any House that replaces it. Otherwise, we are not just in complete paralysis; we are likely to be faced with a major confrontation between the two Houses of Parliament. That is not good for the parliamentary process or for wider democracy.
8.53 p.m.
Lord Rees: My Lords, I rise to pay my respectful tribute to the Royal Commission, so skilfully chaired by my noble friend Lord Wakeham. If there is any criticism to be made of its work, it can in part be attributed to the rather peremptory deadline imposed on the commission, and to its rather tightly drawn terms of reference. Neither the commission nor the world would expect us in this Chamber, or indeed Members of another place, to accept all its conclusions. This is only the start of a debate which will no doubt be carried on in the other place, in the Joint Committee and ultimately in the nation outside. So far, I have not noticed in the newspapers anything like the debate that there was on the earlier reform of this House carried out last year.
In view of the lateness of the hour, perhaps I may turn briefly to the powers of the new House, which will in turn condition its composition. Parenthetically, I bear in mind the remark of my noble friend Lord St John of Fawsley, who is sadly no longer in his place, that we must treat the other place with full courtesy, consideration and delicacy. None the less, if the basis of this debate is how to achieve an upper House to complement the activities, the tone, the performance, and the powers of the other place, it

997
must surely be right to debate those powers, how they have been performed, and whether there is any case for reform of the other place. There is no holy writ that compels us, against that background, to accept unquestioningly what is often alleged or asserted on behalf of the lower House.
I turn now to the pre-eminence of the lower House. It is not defined with any precision, but one gets the general drift. I accept, as have numerous other speakers, that a government based on the elected majority in the other place must be permitted, broadly, to govern. I shall come in a moment to the Salisbury Convention. That cannot be, nor could it be in the future other than in quite exceptional circumstances, any basis for votes of confidence on the government of the day in this House.
Again, the government of the day, properly elected and conducting their affairs properly, are entitled to expect proper votes of supply, although it may be that a revising Chamber, against the altered background of any reform that may be generated by the Royal Commission, might well be entitled, indeed encouraged, to go through the details of Finance Bills, which it is presently disabled from doing.
The pre-eminence of the lower House cannot be regarded as disabling this House from performing its proper role as a revising Chamber: involving detailed scrutiny of legislation, both primary and delegated, and the right to impose a pause for reflection on the other House where matters of important principle are involved. I hope that I am allowed to say, without sounding too controversial, that governments with large majorities have not all been confined to one party. I quite accept that Conservative governments, too, have been guilty of being a little too dismissive, when they have been worsted on some point that we in this Chamber have regarded as being of importance, a point of principle, and of asserting that that whole matter will be put right at short notice by a further measure from the lower House.
It must be recalled, too, that the provisions of the Parliament Act should not be immune from scrutiny under any new arrangement. After all, it would be possible, whatever the practical difficulties, to introduce a measure three times in the course of one Parliament. I do not say that a government should be limited to one attempt in the course of each Parliament and should wait for the verdict of the electorate; however, I believe that three possibilities are too many.
I turn briefly to the Salisbury Convention. In the absence of my noble friend Lord Cranborne, I appreciate that I am treading on holy ground. I feel that that reflected a little too closely the weakened legitimacy of this House in the post-war years. That would have to be reconsidered. It is important to consider the degrees of importance of the legislation which the government of day would try to force through on the basis of what they may or may not have included in their party manifesto. In regard to constitutional matters, for example, if a government, on the basis of a proposal that they may have included in their manifesto, were to move for the abolition of
998
this House or of some of the other major institutions in this country, I should certainly not feel that the Salisbury Convention disabled us from taking up a contrary position here.
I am aware that constitutional questions are difficult to define. Mr Asquith (as he was then) regarded that as a legitimate reason for brushing them aside in the debates on the Parliament Bill in 1911. I doubt that that should be the case. It is not wholly accurate to say that we do not have a written constitution. The devolution legislation, which has been closely considered by Parliament, must be regarded as part of our constitution and certainly can be found in statute. However, other countries have succeeded in isolating categories of measures, particularly constitutional ones, and treating them as matters of legitimate concern for their second Chambers. We must reflect further on that particular question. Equally, together with my noble friend Lord Cranborne I believe that resting with this House a power to call a referendum may be a legitimate weapon in our armoury to deal with matters that fundamentally affect the governance of this country. However, these matters must be looked at in far greater detail if and when we come to legislation in this particular field.
I turn briefly to the composition of the upper Chamber. The dilemma is well known, and no one is better qualified or better able to debate it than the noble Lord, Lord Richard, who brings a wealth of experience to bear on this particular question. If it is an appointed House, there is always the possibility of abuse of political patronage. Although any Prime Minister will be circumscribed by public opinion and matters of that kind, that possibility remains. There is also the question of whether a totally appointed House would command respect and legitimacy. That matter was dealt with in the attractive speeches of the noble Lords, Lord Alderdice and Lord Dahrendorf. It may be possible to invest an upper House with a kind of legitimacy after it has been demonstrated that it performs its functions in a reliable and sensible way.
Perhaps we should look at some foreign precedents. I believe that the Canadian upper House is totally appointed. I am not in a position to say how much legitimacy that Chamber commands. I shall turn to the role of the Royal Commission in that respect. The alternative, which is self-evident, is a process of election. We must be conscious, even in this House, of voter fatigue. To draw on a fairly recent precedent in Wales, I cannot believe that voters west of Offa's Dyke really shared the same degree of enthusiasm that was generated in some of the debates in Westminster, at least on the basis of the numbers who turned out to vote. If we adopted a process of election, clearly we would not want the country to saddle itself, perhaps through inadvertence, with a pale replica of the other place. Therefore, elections would be on a different basis and at different times; otherwise, the same tide that swept into power a party with a particular set of views would be reflected in both the upper and lower Houses and eventually they would not necessarily command much respect in the country as a whole.

999
The Royal Commission has produced the interesting, although not totally original, idea of an appointments commission. I believe that the practical difficulty of identifying the constitutional paragons required to man this Chamber are under-estimated and that as we investigate the proposals more closely, they will be found to be not wholly realistic.
The only practical suggestion I make is that we look a little further at foreign precedents. It will be said at once that our historical precedents are unique and that we are unlikely to want to impose on Westminster anything that is devised elsewhere, even across the Channel. I do not suggest that we do that. I recognise the practical difficulties. In this particular field, nothing transplants easily from one country to another. I regret that the Commission did not devote a little more thought to that question. I believe that it was a little too dismissive of the idea. We should look at those precedents only to see what general conclusions can be drawn from them that may assist us in trying to solve this very difficult dilemma.
I conclude that the upper House as constituted must command sufficient power and respect to carry out its duties as a proper revising Chamber. This House must not be so emasculated as to allow our constitution to become in substance unicameral, even though it may retain some limited formal vestiges of its honourable bicameral past.
9.8 p.m.
The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, I, too, thank the Royal Commission for its hard work in producing a document which is a superb basis for the debate today. I was struck by the words of the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, in describing the environment in which we live today. Relationships, moral authority and communication are of greater importance than they have been in the past.
The noble Lord referred to inheritance. There may be one good reason for keeping a hold on inheritance to some degree. One can be good at one thing in life; it is extremely hard to be good at two things. If one has a parent involved in political action, one may be a great doctor or chemist, and may be able to slip into the parent's shoes at the same time. Those who are considering the process for appointing new Members of this House might bear that in mind. I think of the noble Baroness the Leader of the House, whose father is a supreme politician. I do not dare to comment on the ability of the noble Baroness, but she has combined a superb career in journalism. Several Peers on the Government Front Bench have achieved that also.
I was struck by the strong arguments for not having an elected element within the reformed upper House. I shall return to that issue.
I urge the Government to complete what they have begun. It would be a tragedy if we were left ultimately with a fully elected upper House. I am assured by many noble Lords that the other place would never allow that to happen. However, the noble Lord, Lord Hurd, pointed out that the first choice of the man in the street
1000
on how the new House should be formed is a 100 per cent democratic election. If the issue is left unfinished—the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, made the point—the House may fall into contempt. Parties which may have been in opposition for a long time may be tempted to offer as a manifesto pledge a United States style upper House which might appeal to many people if they were disgruntled with the existing system.
There needs to be an authority in the land. Some body is needed to ensure that the right services reach the right people. Members of the House who may have worked in schools in inner cities and have been involved with and taken an interest in young people who have been in residential care will recognise that the right example can transform a young person's life. That is the example that springs to my mind from my experience. However, we have the ability to transform the world about us if we achieve the right services. That transformation depends on having some form of authority to carry it through.
A properly reformed upper House will have more credibility. The prime reason for a partly elected upper House may be that the House will seem more credible to the general public. While we may understand that there are other forms of authority other than democratic authority, I am not sure that the general public would necessarily agree with that. If the House has a democratic element and therefore more credibility, it is less likely to become a political football.
We have an example of an elected upper House in the United States. In my brief experience in the House, I have listened to discussions on the way in which the United States has not met its international responsibilities and has delayed making payments to the United Nations because the government's two Houses could not come to agreement. I understand that it often does not meet its domestic responsibilities. President Clinton's programme to improve the medical service in the United States is one example. One thinks also of President Carter and his energy policies. These are important policies which fall by the wayside because they cannot pass through the parliamentary system.
I look forward to hearing the Attorney-General's early announcement of a timetable for change. At the end of the process I hope that one will have a sense of completion at the end of a journey.
9.14 p.m.
Lord Selsdon: My Lords, at some time in our lives all of us have a crisis. As I listened to the debate, I wondered why I was feeling increasingly nervous and I realised that I have a crisis of identity. I am not sure who I now am. I know that the right honourable Members of another place are called "right honourable" and I know that technically I am called "the right honourable". However, I am not a Privy Counsellor; I am a hereditary Peer with 37 years' service in this House. Having listened to your

1001
Lordships today, I am not sure whether I am more legitimate or less; whether I am legal because of an Act of Parliament; what rights I have; or who I represent.
To me, democracy is not a static state; it is either coming or going. There are no extremes; there is a circle in which you move to the right or to the left and then come together. Those of us who remember the 1958 and previous attempts at reform have always supported it. In other debates, on Second Reading and in the evidence I gave to the Royal Commission, I emphasised that the hereditary Peers accepted that they were not legitimate because they were not elected. They felt therefore that they had no right to be here and they wanted reform.
One thinks of Shakespeare's Julius Caesar, who said:
"There is a tide in the affairs of men,
Which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune".
I do not know why I thought of that, but I did not think of the noble Baroness the Leader of the House as Brutus or any of Shakespeare's characters. I thought of her as perhaps a little more Byronesque because Byron, paraphrasing Shakespeare, said:
"There is a tide in the affairs of women,
Which, taken at the flood, leads—God knows where".
That is the point. Where are we going? Having listened to today's debate, I have a feeling that there is a mutual protection and admiration society in this House and that it does not want to change because no one wants to go.
My problem is that I did not expect to be elected. I am not sure that I wanted to be elected. I was asked to submit my name, but on my election address it was spelt wrongly. I spent more than an hour and a half trying to put 42 names in order because I had not understood the result.
I listened to the noble Baroness and remembered that stage one meant that all hereditary Peers would go and that there would be no compromise. Within a short time, at Second Reading someone said, "Actually, we will accept an amendment if it is tabled". The Weatherill amendment was tabled, but I am afraid that I did not support it because I thought that it was morally wrong, dishonest and contrived. I have nothing against the individuals involved in it.
I listened to many people promoting the concept that there were great men and good among the hereditary peerage, including former Foreign Secretaries and members of the Privy Council. We were told that they must go, but, suddenly through the back door, back they come! Why did it have to be this way? Why were so many enemies created when the hereditary peerage was in favour of reform?
There are many misconceptions about all this. Your Lordships will know that of the 650 who went, 60 per cent took no Whip. They were, in a way, independent. Whether or not they came from the first, second or third generation was almost irrelevant. We knew our places. That is why there were conventions.
1002
I am concerned because I do not regard the removal of 600 hereditary Peers as reform. I could almost say that it is a step backwards because we lost a considerable volume of knowledge. I would not persuade your Lordships that the standard of the House has risen since they left. We had instant information as a result of experience rather than the rhetoric which comes from those who have to read a prepared brief. You have to get "run-in" in this place.
I am not sure whether I am now called a hereditary Peer. I no longer like being Lord Selsdon; I prefer "selsdonm@parliament.uk". If I am elected, I would rather be that and get rid of the idea that people come here as a reward for past service. They should be here because they have a service to perform. Whether that relates to time, ability or input, whether or not you have outside jobs, you give of your best when you have the time. If you have no time for anything else, it is possible that you do not have the outside experience that goes with it.
There is a worry. As a small winegrower, I have used this phrase before: I am worried that we shall all wither on the vine. The matter of withering on the vine is quite interesting. As we have debated the reform of the House, so the average age of Peers has increased. Fifty per cent of life Peers are over 70 years of age. That is quite interesting. Sixty-five per cent are over 65. Of course, 65 per cent of hereditary Peers are under 65. That is not a political issue on which I wish to score points; I merely point out that the age profile is interesting.
With regard to the vine, in general one takes the harvest 90 days after the flower. Generally, I notice that it takes most people approximately 90 days to begin to absorb the atmosphere, the procedures and the friendliness of this House. There is no need to attack. Rapidly, we all come to know each other's strengths and weaknesses and we speak only of each other's strengths. That gives one a certain folie de grandeur. I always feel insecure so I prefer to have my back to the wall! However, one knows one's weaknesses and what one can say.
At times, it is extraordinarily difficult to be productive without being destructive. Having listened to the debate today, I feel that the consensus of opinion is that we should not have an elected bunch of people here at all. Yet, the very reason for getting rid of the hereditary peerage was that it was not elected. I have found myself in more agreement with more people on more sides of the House and in more disagreement with more people on more sides of the House than ever before. I agree with almost everything said by the noble Lord, Lord Richard.
However, if we do not move to stage two, there will have been more than a certain moral dishonesty. The whole concept behind this was that proper reform should be carried out in order to produce a democratic Chamber. I do not attempt to define "democracy". The ancient Greeks and people through time immemorial have done that. In a way, we could say that we prefer a benevolent anarchy to a malevolent dictatorship. However, if we do not introduce proper

1003
reform which is perceived as reform by the other place with which we must be in harmony, and by the outside world, we shall have failed ourselves and I believe that we shall have failed the country.
9.21 p.m.
Lord Stone of Blackheath: My Lords, it is not fair. I often have to follow the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon. His background allows him to stand up and speak without notes and without nerves. He is quite right; I have to speak with a prepared brief and with nerves. However, I shall press on.
I remember clearly the first debate which I listened to here, on a minor reform. Two years ago we discussed another report—that of the Select Committee on the Ceremony of Introduction. The House was packed. The ceremony used to last too long and so, it seemed, did the debate. I recall that the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, who was the chairman of the Select Committee, was exasperated because the debate went over old ground and it was two-and-a-half hours before he was able to speak. He said that surely a handpicked, cross-party committee of experts who had spent 400 man-hours taking evidence and debating that issue should have their recommendations adopted without the House rehearsing all the arguments on the Floor over and over again. I agreed.
On the other hand, the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, was quick to point out that, even when a Select Committee report was thorough and detailed, it was the duty of Parliament to consider the recommendations at a leisurely pace and accept or reject them as it pleased. I agreed with that also. Therefore, we are entitled to take our time here. However, like the ceremony, we cannot go round in circles. We should move on.
The current Royal Commission had to investigate weightier matters than a ceremony. It was composed of excellent representatives from the main political parties. It was put together carefully to include a variety of expertise and knowledge. It has completed a massive task on time. The appendices represent 20 pages of the widest consultation. The CD-ROM is full of detailed submissions, sifted and sorted for us by the commission. The report is pragmatic. It is neither an impractical academic analysis, nor a radical plan to replace us with a senate. The experience and wisdom of the commission has presented us with a useful, detailed document which, after careful and sober reflection, should lead to pragmatic evolutionary progress in reform.
What is more, this diverse commission came to its conclusions consensually and unanimously. It has moved on its thinking, suggesting realistic ways in which patronage can be curtailed by the use of an independent appointments commission. It shows ways to include an elected proportion and it proposes compositions which suit the interests of whole of the United Kingdom.
Since the report's publication and in my discussions on it with a wide range of experts, all have commented on its usefulness. Once we accept the role and function
1004
defined in the paper and thence the principles put forward for the composition, there is agreement that it contains much that can be easily put into action.
Reforms that will immediately bring improvements to the workings of your Lordships' House are, first, the proposal to make greater use of our committees. That will help us to work more efficiently and effectively. Our current committees do excellent work and are well respected. We have heard much today about legitimacy. One has first to ask the question, legitimacy for what? If the second Chamber is to act, for example, as a constitutional long-stop, then a House composed in the way suggested that chooses as a select committee from among its Members the best possible assortment of people to monitor constitutional legislation, will have formed a committee with legitimacy.
The report suggests that we set up an over-arching constitutional committee with sub-committees on human rights and devolution. It suggests a committee to scrutinise treaties; a joint committee on pre-legislative scrutiny; and broadening the role of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee. They are all good suggestions that could be implemented.
When we go down that route, these committees must be properly resourced with facilities and support to make them efficient, with decent conditions of work for the membership and the secretariat. Secondly, very good procedural changes are also recommended. I understand that many of them require only the approval of the Clerk of Parliaments. This House is the master of its own procedures, unlike another place, and we can and should move forward.
I do not agree with all the recommendations in the report. As regards the representation of religious faiths, as a Jew I cannot see how one could possibly imagine that one person, even of the stature of Jonathan Sacks, could represent the views of our argumentative community. I believe that my friends in the Muslim community would also have difficulty with a single spokesman. In addition, if we represent the main beliefs, what about representation of the secular?
However, I believe that these and other issues could be discussed in an informal way and resolved pragmatically by consensus. The commission's report is a good basis for these discussions, full of wisdom and practical alternatives. We should continue the process and try to move forward with the suggestions that it contains that can be put into place and open to further reform. Too radical a change can be dangerous; no change is worse. A steady, evolving constitution has grown to serve us well over the centuries. This report is a good staging post on the way to a more effective settlement.
9.27 p.m.
Lord Naseby: My Lords, I, too, pay respect to my noble friend Lord Wakeham whom I have known for 40 years. Previously, he was a particularly well-known company doctor who has now produced an extremely thorough report with its unique concept of being unanimous but with three variables in it.

1005
I wish to be associated with the speeches of the noble Lords, Lord Waddington, Lord Sawyer and Lord Dahrendorf. Having got that all-party support, I pay tribute also to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, and say how good it is that he has sat on the Bench for the whole of these proceedings. I believe that that reflects well for our future debates.
I, too, was pleased when the commission rejected the idea of a unicameral Parliament. After all, even Cromwell brought hack the House of Lords when, in his view, the revived House could be more reflective, had time to consider issues and would not be totally influenced by matters of the moment. That is a doctrine we would do well to think about.
Although it was not part of the commission's brief, it is also right that we reflect in our debates the changed situation in Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales and, a little way down the track, the English regions. That means, I believe, that the numbers in the other place must be substantially reduced, maybe to around 450. Unless that happens the whole of our parliamentary democracy will be challenged.
I wish to speak mainly about the composition, but I shall say just a few words about scrutiny. Recommendation 35, which makes a very strong case for the enhanced scrutiny of secondary legislation, is so right. There are other sensible proposals in chapter 8, entitled "Holding the Government to account".
Sadly, perhaps because of time, the commission did not have the opportunity to address how the numerous regulators are to have some form of legitimate parliamentary accountability. At the moment, that accountability rests entirely with the sponsoring department. I recognise that it is a relatively new problem and that your Lordships, when debating the Financial Services and Markets Bill, will have to debate to whom the FSA should be accountable to.
The second dimension that was not addressed is whether the Audit Commission should now be amalgamated with the National Audit Office. After all, it was only separated because my noble friend Lady Thatcher felt that the National Audit Office was becoming far too strong and that local government should not be controlled by it. The Audit Commission faces two new challenges in the near future. First, it has to address the Commission for Health Improvement, which is yet another regulatory body, and not far down the track will be the English regions.
Looking at the question of composition and keeping in mind Cromwell's view that the Chamber could be more reflective, having time to consider issues and not being totally influenced by matters of the moment, in my submission to the commission I felt strongly that this second Chamber should be fully appointed. In saying that, I highlighted a number of areas. I shall select only a few of those I put forward in my evidence.
First, the term "full-time politician" produces a certain degree of derision. I submit, however, that amending and scrutinising legislation is not a job for the amateur. One needs some experience of it; otherwise one has no knowledge of how to dig deep and ask the right questions.
1006
Secondly, some citizens are not represented by anyone. I refer to those who are in the dependent territories. There is at least one member of the commission sitting in the Chamber at the moment. I have to say that I was disappointed that the dependent territories were not referred to in the report. They appeared in the evidence I submitted. It is likely that those dependent territories will remain dependent territories. Their populations are relatively small but they still amount to several thousand British citizens. I could argue that had there been somebody in this Chamber able to talk with authority on the Falklands, we would not perhaps have got ourselves into the position that we did. Certainly there should be a voice of some kind for Gibraltar, some of our Pacific possessions, and the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands.
Lord Butler of Brockwell: My Lords, I think the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, does the Royal Commission a slight injustice. There is a reference to the dependent territories. The report does not recommend that there should be automatic representation in this Chamber, but it does say that this is a matter which the appointments commission could take into account.
Lord Naseby: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord. That just proves that one should crawl through every inch of the document.
At Question Time today, there was some debate about the difference between religion and faith. I have to say to your Lordships that, for better or worse, in my former constituency, which I represented in another place, I had to wrestle with what is generally termed a cult; I refer to the Jesus People. I think great care must be taken when we are dealing with the definition of a religion as opposed to a faith.
I believe also—and this may be a delicate area which, I hasten to say, has no personal dimension—that our second Chamber would be well advised to contemplate having a speaker or president. That should not he the Lord Chancellor of the day. I personally feel that the practice of having a Lord Chancellor speaking, as he must, as a government Minister and trying at the same time to be an impartial figure is not acceptable. It reflects badly on the independence and validity of the second Chamber. It is not for me, necessarily, to suggest a format but certainly the format in the other place of a Speaker, a Chairman of Ways and Means, two Deputy Speakers and a Chairman's Panel seems to work well there. There are other structures abroad which are not very different.
Finally, I made the point in my submission—and we seem to be losing sight of this—that if, as a second Chamber, we are to be a revising Chamber, we really should be sitting rather less than the other place and not rather more often, as seems to have been the case in recent years.
I conclude by explaining why I totally reject the idea of elected Members of our Chamber. It is simply because, in my judgment, none of us here should be

1007
behoven to any electorate. I do not believe that any of us should have to look over our shoulders and say, "I was sent here by so and so. I must now go and consult so and so and I must reflect his viewpoint." I believe that we are here to represent all the people and if we do not do that, then we fail. I draw attention to the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Sawyer, who put some very practical questions before the Government.
I conclude with the thought of Charles Montesquieu who wrote in 1721:
"It is sometimes necessary to change certain laws but the occasion is rare, and when it arises one must only touch them with a trembling hand".
All our hands should be trembling now as we face up to stage two, but we should be steadfast in protecting the rights and liberties of the British people.
9.36 p.m.
Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, I fear that I shall be demonstrating yet again that there is little agreement within the parties as well as between the parties. I shall certainly be speaking against the mainstream thrust of the argument which has been demonstrated tonight in your Lordships' House.
Mine is one of the few discordant voices and I apologise in advance for treading on any noble sensitivities. I am an unreconstructed radical. I am grateful to my professional colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, for acknowledging that while he is in total disagreement to the position that I adopt he accepts its intellectual coherence and lineage.
With respect, I regret to say that this is a very flawed report which, pace the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham, deservedly was condemned by the broadsheet press when it appeared. It was described as "timid" in the Independent, as
"a meagre contribution to the cause of constitutional renewal"
in the Daily Telegraph,
"a muddled report … a mumbled agreement among the Westminster club to keep things as they are"
in the Guardian,
"The Eunuch's House—the Wakeham Report will not enhance Parliament''
in The Times, whose leading columnist, Simon Jenkins dismissed it as,
"Wakeham the Weak—This report is just what Blair wanted—timid, confusing and conservative".
I mention those headlines to remind your Lordships of outside perceptions. The debate this evening has been very much one of the club talking to itself.
Such universal criticism is not surprising. The commission was handicapped from the outset for failing to reflect in its membership the broad spectrum of opinion on constitutional reform. Therefore, inevitably, it has produced an oligarch's charter, allowing for cronies appointed by the Prime Minister of the day with a very high risk, which I notice some noble Lords welcome, of corporatist representatives selected by an appointments commission with a relatively small number of regionally elected members.
1008
The noble Lord, Lord Butler, refuted that this was a dog's breakfast. I agree with him. It is not a dog's breakfast: it is a regurgitated dog's breakfast. It will simply not do. No democrat could subscribe to such a ludicrous set of proposals. If the second Chamber is to have any legitimacy and attract popular consent, it must be elected. There is little point in discussing the rest of the Wakeham recommendations because of the commission's specific proposals on composition and membership.
The Wakeham Commission failed to grasp a golden opportunity to attempt to engage the Lords with the people, by producing a modern, relevant blueprint based on Members elected on a different basis to those of another place. The commission's proposals guarantee that your Lordships' House will become a sideshow, functioning less as an influential legislature and more as a quaint tourist attraction. There should have been widespread public consultation by the commission. That was the very least the topic demanded. The consultation exercise as undertaken by the commission—and I realise the time constraints on it—was hopelessly partial and inadequate. For example, as against a series of private meetings of assorted members of the political, legal and religious establishment, only 21 sessions in nine locations were held for the public. They were poorly publicised and attracted derisory numbers. Not surprisingly, some proposed sessions had to be cancelled or curtailed. It is likely that the commission met more people from the establishment than members of the public at large.
The only extensive test of public opinion came from Democratic Audit. It submitted evidence drawn up by a panel chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Plant of Highfield, of which I, too, was a member—I declare that interest. It supplemented that evidence by commissioning a nationwide poll from ICM. That poll revealed that a huge majority of citizens—no less that 84 per cent—favoured election over appointment for a new second Chamber, with only 5 per cent being strongly in favour of appointment. They must have polled your Lordships.
The poll was undertaken in August 1999 and its full results were communicated to the Royal Commission. Significantly, they are not cited in its report. A similar poll will be commissioned in the near future to probe public opinion further on the question.
The dilemma of competing legitimacies between upper and lower Chambers when both are elected and the need to maintain the supremacy of the lower House, to which the noble Baroness the Leader of the House referred, can, I believe, be managed by defining the functions and role of the upper House.
Hiding behind spurious Burkean notions of the virtue of slow evolutionary constitutional change is untenable. Edmund Burke himself would not have entertained such subterfuge. Indeed, the Government seemed at the outset fully to realise the need for a radical overhaul by the welcome and long overdue abolition of the hereditary principle for membership of your Lordships' House initiated by the Government last year. That was a vital and necessary prerequisite

1009
for a new, modern and democratic second Chamber. Unfortunately, the Government's early enthusiasm for reform in that, as in so many other policy areas, deserted them. They contrived a Royal Commission which would produce the compromised and contradictory proposals which in fact it has.
Let us hope that the Government will have learnt the lessons from the shambles that has ensued through their attempts to fix arrangements to suit their own purposes; first, over the appointment of the First Secretary in Wales and, secondly, by their gerrymandering of their party's candidate for the mayor of London. This time, over the question of the reform of the second Chamber, they should have the wisdom to reject the fix provided obligingly by the Royal Commission. The Government should convene an all-party Joint Committee for round table talks to discuss the future. They should follow not their own instincts but those of the vast majority of the British people and agree plans for a wholly elected second Chamber. They would gain much respect from doing so and possibly staunch the haemorrhage of their traditional core supporters, disillusioned with their control freakery as recent opinion polls report.
9.44 p.m.
Lord Reay: My Lords, I confess that I was extremely impressed by the report of the Royal Commission. To my surprise, following criticism by a disappointed press, an example of which the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, has just read out, I found it well written, ingenious and worldly. It is also extremely thorough, compendious, and provides an education in itself for anyone whose knowledge or understanding of the working of this House is incomplete. Given the time available to the commission, the report is an astonishing achievement. Whatever its immediate fate, I am sure that it will provide the reference point for future debate about the reform of the House and in all probability will map out its future evolution.
One specific criticism that I have is that in listing the various interests or groups that should be represented, or better represented in your Lordships' House, such as the voluntary sector, the professions, cultural and sporting interests, other religious faiths, ethnic minorities, women and so on, no mention was made of economic interests. I believe the report lapsed in apparently forgetting to make a bow in the direction of the wealth creators. Unless the political class shows sympathy for them, all our grand and expensive schemes will come to nothing.
My noble friend Lord Wakeham has made no great secret of the fact that he had to be persuaded to come round to the view that there should be an elected element. The reason for such a recommendation evidently is not to produce a House composed of more suitable people, or which will function better internally, but that it would achieve thereby greater public acceptability. Having decided on an elected element, the next matter to decide was at what level:
1010
too high and such a House would challenge the pre-eminence of the House of Commons; too low and it may not achieve its aim of winning for the House the required degree of public favour.
As noble Lords know, three options are put forward, in each of which the elected element is in the minority. With the elimination of the vast majority of hereditary Peers, have not the illegitimacy, and with it the lack of self-confidence to which the Royal Commission refers, which amount to about the only faults that the Royal Commission seems to have found with the House of Lords, already been removed? Has not a sufficient degree of legitimacy been reached? After all, it is only a question of degree, and the art of measuring legitimacy can hardly be an exact science, as is implicitly recognised by the Royal Commission in putting forward three alternative elected options, for which I do not criticise it at all.
Another point to be borne in mind is in that scholarly work, discovered and quoted by the Royal Commission, Senates—Bicameralism in the Contemporary World by Samuel Patterson and Anthony Mughan of Ohio University—required bedside reading, I can assure noble Lords, for would-be constitution builders—in which this comment is made:
"The problem with upper houses is their very existence places parliamentary democracies on the horns of a dilemma … upper house influence runs counter to the basic principle of majoritarian democracy that political authority derives only from election by the people. The quandary is how to reconcile the usefulness of institutions that are not always directly elected with an influence on policy that is not their democratic right".
The answer would seem to be direct election, but that produces a rival to the lower House and endless problems of reconciliation between two equal Houses when disputes occur between them. So the outcome is less, not more, democracy, as the Leader of the House and my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth agreed. The authors conclude:
"the upshot of this situation is that senates in parliamentary democracies are forever under the microscope of Parliamentary reform … Senate reform is a perennial item on the political agenda of Parliamentary democracies, perhaps because the threat of reform provides valuable leverage for governments wanting to influence senate behaviour".
In other words, do not let us think that by adopting Wakeham we would deal once and for all with the question of this House's legitimacy. Whatever we do, this House will not be able to escape the issue of its legitimacy. Might not, therefore, the sensible and pragmatic course be to see, first, how the additional legitimacy which this House has already achieved and which has been demonstrated by its use of long-neglected powers over secondary legislation affects the usefulness of this House in our political constitution, before rushing into a scheme of election that even its advocates do not claim would add to the quality of the House, and which at the least would be divisive because it would bring in a new, supposedly superior, class of Peer who would purport to be here to give us respectability and who would be expensive because those elected Peers would bring all sorts of new demands in their wake?

1011
I have two things to say concerning my party's position on this matter. I hope that my party is not going to enter into a competition with the party opposite over the number of elected Peers it wishes to see introduced into this House. I am sure that it will not. But with its record of inactivity on this issue during the long years in power, if it does my party will never sound convincing and, worse, may find itself, in order to demonstrate its sincerity, having to make a commitment in its manifesto. I hope that when it comes to power—and it will one day come to power—it will have better things to do in government (although this sounds a harsh thing to say) than pour energy into such a secondary issue before any need to do so has been demonstrated.
I also think that even though my party is now in opposition, it should look at this matter from the perspective of government, as I am sure that it will, and should refrain from calling for an impractical degree of power and independence for this House.
Like other noble Lords, I see no reason why other proposals in the report relating to the operation and function of your Lordships' House should not be judged and introduced on their merits, even if the recommendations on composition are not straightaway proceeded with. Just as the previous unreformed House brought into existence and developed the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee, why should not the present House bring into existence a constitution committee such as my right honourable friend Mr John Major initially recommended to the commission, or the suggested sub-committees on human rights and devolution? A constitution committee and the other committees would be composed more of the sort of people who are available here already by appointment than those likely to be elected. Many other Wakeham proposals could be easily and simply adopted by the present House.
I thought some of the wisest words spoken during the long passage of the House of Lords Bill through your Lordships' House last Session were spoken at Second Reading by the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan. He said,
"there are as many ways of reforming the constitution as there are Members of Parliament and Peers",
adding,
"What is worse, most are plausible".—[Official Report, 30/3/99; col. 218.]
Anyone who has listened to five hours of this debate realises how true those words were. Any government are for that reason going to hesitate now before embarking on further reform of your Lordships' House. It seems to me that a government contemplating a major reform of the composition of your Lordships' House need both to feel a strong imperative to act and to have a large majority in another place. Even now I doubt whether both those, in my view necessary, conditions apply. We shall have to wait and see what the situation will be after the next
1012
election. But the brave words that we heard from the Leader of the House today may well turn out to be no more than that.
I shall leave this House happily when called upon to do so, but hereditary Peers who represent tradition may still have an important part to play in this evolving House. I shall leave a lot happier if it is not to make way for an elected element. I see no manifest advantage in including an elected element in your Lordships' House at the present time. Apart from anything else, there is a risk of spoiling what we already have. I believe that the introduction of life Peers, which owes its existence to the reforming activities of a Conservative government, has been an outstanding success and is not something that should be thrown away or compromised lightly.
I can understand, and sympathise with, the anguish of members of the Royal Commission—the noble Lord, Lord Butler, and the noble Baroness, Lady Dean—and with the noble Lord, Lord Richard, if the chance of a lifetime, or even of a century, as my noble friend Lord Wakeham thought this might be, for Lords reform slips away. However, from my reading of British history, we have only rarely proceeded by adopting blueprints, or proceeded to constitutional reform at all except in conditions of great, or even dire, necessity. The problem, from the point of view of noble Lords today, is that I fear that there may not be sufficient political necessity.
9.57 p.m.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I am much encouraged to see the noble Lord, Lord Richard, sitting opposite me, not because of any exchanges that we have had in the past, but because he seems to me to be like a good old-fashioned steam engine who for a long time pulled the constitutional train in the direction of Lords reform. He has now been switched round to the hack of the train and is pushing even harder. I wish him more strength to his pistons.
The purpose of this debate is nominally to take note of the report of the Royal Commission chaired by my noble friend Lord Wakeham. I join others in thanking him for this opportunity and for all his work. However, if the debate itself is to have any worth, it lies not in looking back at the work of the Royal Commission but in trying to influence the events that will follow. For that reason, it seems to me that we should not be speaking to each other, but to members of the future putative Joint Select Committee of both Houses. I hope that, when the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General comes to reply, he will tell us when that is to be convened. I did not hear any reference made to it in the speech of his noble friend the Leader of the House.
In our review, we should start not like the noble Baroness, Lady Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, with the purpose of the House of Lords, but with the purpose of Parliament itself. In his excellent potted history, the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, omitted an essential comment: namely, that the basic function of Parliament is to control the Executive. Until the

1013
arrival of George I, who could not speak English, that was relatively simple to achieve because the Executive was in the Crown and was thus outside Parliament. But when it was necessary to appoint a Prime Minister in Parliament to conduct the business of the Executive, then the division became blurred. That was because the House of Commons in particular, but also the House of Lords (in a diminishing ratio nowadays, but always to a certain extent) had been required to provide the government as well as to control it.
In another place, where ambition is keener because careers are shorter, the ability of the Executive to offer places to its members gives it an extremely powerful means of control. The function of Parliament is to control the Executive on behalf of the people of this country. That is now almost synonymous with the electorate, but of course it was not until the passing of the Reform Acts. In doing that, Parliament is a trustee for the people of this country. Anything that is lacking in the House of Commons must therefore be supplied by this House. For that reason, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, and many others who have commented that we are holding a very three-legged debate because there is no room in it for consideration of the strengths and weaknesses of another place. Indeed, my noble friend Lord St John of Fawsley suggested that any criticism of the other place was like using a pea-shooter to hit them in their tender parts when we should be trying to secure co-operation from them.
It is essential to look at those shortcomings. For example, Parliament itself changes with every parliament, as does the House of Commons. The current House of Commons seems to me to be very short of people with experience of executive or, indeed, any other responsibility outside politics and Parliament. Therefore, any second Chamber that replaces this one must take that into account and recruit people with such experience.
As I have already said, there is a blurring, especially in the House of Commons, between the duty to provide and the duty to control the Executive. That springs very largely from the patronage available in the other place to the government of the day. Incidentally, perhaps I may leave a few words on the table, as it were, for the Joint Select Committee, or whoever takes this business forward. I presume that all of them are parliamentarians, or will be. The words are these: "Remember, if you are in government at the moment, that your party will soon be in opposition; and, if you are in opposition at the moment, remember that your party will soon be in government. If you play this as a match between parties, you are being blazing fools because you are in fact abusing an opportunity to do something for this country in the long term, in order to secure short-term advantage for one section of its population".
Having said that, it seems to me that the second need in this House is that it should not be subject to the patronage pull of the government of the day, to which people in another place are subject. That can be avoided by giving some form of tenure. The Royal Commission suggested a three-term appointment for
1014
15 years, and others have suggested that that could perhaps be renewed. When renewal is in prospect—this is much more important if we are to have elected Members than if we have appointed Members—all sorts of new considerations come into people's minds as they conduct themselves in the Chamber. They have their eye on the electorate, the appointing committee, the Government, or whoever. I am against reappointment. I think that appointment should be either for life or for a specific term; it should not be for ever. I was distracted for a moment by the noble Lord. Lord Desai: I commiserate with him on his late arrival.
What we need is a House that is independent of the government of the day, whose Members are experienced in life outside Parliament and who are not unduly influenced in their behaviour by those outside this Chamber. They should not be supported in a style of life by their attendance allowance, their salary, or whatever it is called, such as to suborn them away from the useful outside activities that actually give them most of their strength as Members of this House and of Parliament. So I am against re-election and I am deeply dubious about election; I am entirely against reappointment; and I am all for independence.
There is something at the centre of the matter. It cannot be said too often and, unfortunately, it is not said often enough, although my noble friend Lady Young touched on it in her excellent speech. We are trustees for the electorate. That means that we are here to ensure, above everything else, that every five years the electorate of the day has the chance to boot out, or to keep in office, the government of the day. If that is lost, history shows that it can only be regained with terrible price, usually paid in war or in revolution. That sounds pretty alarmist, but the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford rightly said that, when you are building constitutions, you build against the storm and not against fair weather. Therefore, what we decide about the constitution of this House is of critical importance for future generations.
I have not sought to give a conspectus of this admirable report; I have sought merely to leave some words before the eyes of those who will come together from the two Houses to determine our future.
10.5 p.m.
Lord Williamson of Horton: My Lords, as a very recent Member of your Lordships' House I did not intervene in the long debates in the previous Session on the membership of this House. But today we are looking forward and, as I hope to make a contribution to the work of the reformed House, I should like to make some comments and to pose some questions on the report of the Royal Commission and on the constitutional developments which may result from it, particularly as I am running level with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, as regards the "gold star" for continuous attendance in this debate.
In a long career in public service, I have heard many times that a particular moment is a defining moment. If we do not say it, the press do. However, I think that, in the true sense of the phrase, we are now at a point

1015
where we can define the future role of your Lordships' House, its political, regional and independent composition, and to some extent also not only what this House will be, but also what it will do.
On that last point I have been struck by the fact that although attention is rightly concentrated on the proposals concerning the appointments commission, the political balance in the House and the possible regional Members, the Royal Commission also makes important observations and 13 recommendations in relation to the law-making role of this House, together with 20 recommendations on the future scrutiny by this House of national statutory instruments and on holding the Government to account, in particular on European Union matters. Those recommendations may not be as eye-catching as some of the other major recommendations, but they deserve careful attention and I shall come back to them.
More generally, I start from the principle, in relation to the structure of our parliamentary regime, that there should be no cloning. I am one of those who believe that it is important not only that the other place should have the predominant role but also that we should not put ourselves in a position where we actually, or appear to, damage that role. History has shaped the role of your Lordships' House to be, first, a revising Chamber which seeks to improve draft legislation and to return it to the Members of the other place for their decision whether to accept, to refuse or partially to accept the changes. Secondly, it is a fail-safe House which, on issues of a constitutional nature or which concern very long-standing traditions of UK practice, has sufficient authority to require the Government and the other place to consider most seriously the objections raised in this House. Thirdly, it is an authoritative Chamber with a wide range of knowledge of different aspects of our national life and an independence of judgment.
The question now is how far the recommendations of the Royal Commission maintain and enhance this role. On balance, for me, the answer must clearly be that they do, and for that reason they should be generally supported. First, on the role of the revising Chamber, it is right to stress the advantage of the suspensory veto and to reject some of the more confrontational or more drastic methods used in some other countries for resolving disputes between two Chambers of Parliament. Examples are the super-majority; the shuttle between Chambers—which in Italy rather charmingly can continue indefinitely; the referendum; the dissolution of both Chambers or joint Sessions of both Chambers.
But the Royal Commission presents in a very moderate way a proposal which was first formally proposed 82 years ago, and is perhaps now reaching maturity: that in case of disagreements between the two Houses of Parliament, either House could refer the question to a Joint Committee whose opinion would clearly carry weight but could not, of course, override the power of the other place to take a final decision. I support that recommendation. Although
1016
I know that the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General will not wish to respond specifically and piecemeal on this or any other recommendation, I hope that he will none the less indicate some benevolence towards the suggestion that the two Houses should consider this proposal and consider it favourably.
Secondly, in relation to the protection of the constitution—a function of this House which is widely recognised and supported by the British people—the Royal Commission rightly concludes that this does not require additional powers. However, it also proposes that, in order to focus possible constitutional concerns and to avoid a haphazard approach, there would be value in an authoritative constitutional committee of this House. I see advantage in that and I am glad that the Leader of the House indicated a favourable approach to that issue when she spoke at the beginning of the debate. It might of course be associated, either through a sub-committee or through some common membership, with the Joint Committee on human rights, which the Government have already announced that they will ask both Houses of Parliament to set up.
Thirdly, in relation to the authoritative Chamber which we all wish to see maintained or enhanced, the Royal Commission proposes the election of regional Members in order to spread the range of interests within this House. I do not see this proposal as related to some kind of search for a greater element of legitimacy for these Members. Indeed, I do not see any case for two classes of Member at all; nor do I believe—contrary to the view expressed in your Lordships' House—that there will be two classes of Member. I shall take a substantial bet that within six weeks of such a decision, the difference between the Members would not be visible in this House.
It is a matter of political judgment whether the identity of the public with their nation or region within the United Kingdom will increase. In other countries in western Europe there has been a tendency in this direction, including in those countries with a strong tradition of centralised government. On balance, I think it will become more evident here, particularly in the English regions as they observe the devolution which has already taken place in Scotland, Wales and, potentially, in Northern Ireland.
I noted that the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, did not identify very much with the East Midlands. In the region in which I live, people do identify with their region and I am quite sure that that will increase in future.
The simplest proposal is the one favoured by the majority of the Commission—that is, Model B—which involves an election at the same time as the European parliamentary elections. I sincerely hope that it will be possible to have a partially open-list system and that in one way or another the public will be able to vote for a list or for individuals.
I am surprised that the proposed number of regional Members is as high as 87, but this surprise is simply because the Royal Commission apparently envisages a

1017
total Chamber which is rather larger than I would expect. I am the only Peer who has spoken in the debate who thinks that 550 Members is too many for this House.
I think that the public would readily understand the proposal put forward that we need to have a greater spread of interests, including regional interests, in this House, and that an excellent way to achieve that would be to ask them to choose those persons. It could be done in a different way, but I think the public would quite readily understand that.
I noted, of course, that the total number of Members of the House would not be fixed under the Royal Commission's proposal. In this respect, the appointments commission would have the rather headmasterly task of taking account of our workload and our levels of attendance.
Although I support the proposals on regional Members, I believe that, in practice, because of regional and local issues, such Members will not avoid some element of a constituency role. This will be because the public in those regions would identify to some extent with their new Members.
Finally, I come back to what the Royal Commission said about scrutinising statutory instruments and about strengthening the scrutiny of European matters. I shall be brief, but I attach importance to this point. I very much hope that the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General will at least look benignly on the question of a strong contribution from this Chamber to enhance parliamentary scrutiny of national secondary legislation, including the proposal that there should be a "suspensory veto" for such legislation taking effect, if this House had voted to annul a draft instrument.
I should add that, in relation to some secondary legislation in the European Union, I should like to see a similar power for the European Parliament. That would give this House the power and the time to scrutinise that secondary legislation which, at the present time, we do not have.
A single question was posed directly to Members of this House by the noble Baroness the Leader of the House in her opening remarks. It was the question of the separation of the peerage from the membership of this House. I can reply briefly. I am in favour of that proposal.
As the Royal Commission recommends that I, like other life Peers, should be here until I die, or retire—the commission relies principally on the Grim Reaper to sort out this issue!—I look forward, because I have certain elements of tenure, to seeing some of these ideas actually come to pass.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, in something over 40 years spent in active politics, I never remember a previous government embarking on even minor constitutional change without at least trying to achieve some form of consensus with the other parties first. The Government
1018
seem to glory in not trying to do so. As a result, there is not a single constitutional change they have made that is not deeply flawed in some way or another.
First, there were the two devolution Bills. If it is desirable to give the Scots and the Welsh responsibility for their own destiny, surely it must follow that the local party members should be able to decide who they want to lead them, without having to defer to Downing Street or Smith Square. It is, to say the least, unlikely, if the two referenda had been held on the same day rather than a week apart, that there would be a Welsh Assembly now. The Neill report on standards in public life in effect rebuked Her Majesty's Government retrospectively for using public money to support one side of the argument.
Then there is the West Lothian question. The only answer that the party opposite seems to have arrived at is to pretend that it does not exist. As a result, it would be possible now for Labour Members of the Scottish Parliament to choose one option for their own countrymen, and for their Westminster colleagues, at the behest of Downing Street, to inflict the exact opposite on England and Wales.
As for Westminster itself, the Government have reduced Prime Minister's Question Time in another place from two days to one. They have allowed important statements to be made direct to the press from Downing Street. They have put spin doctors above Ministers of the Crown. And, as to the spin doctors, when are they going to pay attention to the Neill Committee's warnings about them? Finally, there is the matter of the mayor of London.
All of which brings us back to the question of your Lordships' House. Again and again we implored the Government that there should be no phase one without phase two, because, once the incentive of getting rid of the hereditary Peers had been thrown away, it might well prove impossible to get agreement on definitive reform, let alone getting the Bill through another place. Many of the speeches that I have heard today have only added weight to that concern. But no, the Government could not wait to get rid of the hereditary Peers.
And now the Royal Commission has recommended that all life Peers, unless they themselves decide otherwise, should remain Members of this House for the rest of their natural lives. And what about the considerable number of life Peers who seldom if ever turn up? Are they to be allowed to linger on and haunt the reformed House as a new generation of backwoodsmen? The Government, of course, resolutely refused to have even one hereditary Peer of long-standing experience on the Royal Commission who might have given invaluable advice as to how a newly constituted second Chamber would best work.
It is just as well that we insisted on the by-election procedure for the 92 hereditary Peers. If the Royal Commission proposal as it stands were to go through, the ultimate House that it envisages would be unlikely to come into effect for many years.

1019
In that connection, I was horrified to hear that my noble friend Lord Wakeham and the noble Baroness, Lady Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, should have found it necessary to urge the House to take account of the report now or the opportunity might not occur again for many years. We have no choice. We are honour bound to do so. Now is the time for Her Majesty's Government to save something out of the wreck. They owe it to the country, with whose trusted institutions they have been tinkering. They owe it to Parliament, whose prestige and authority they have been sidelining. And, above all perhaps, they owe it to the hereditary Peers whom they have sent packing like a lot of naughty schoolchildren after a lifetime, many of them, of public service spent in this building, to put something of positive and immediate value in their place.
The steps forward are simple: first, to set up the independent commission with statutory backing to vet the whole of each new list of Peers, not just for the Cross-Benches but also the party nominations; secondly, to set up a joint Select Committee of both Houses to answer the questions and round off the rough edges—there are some—in the report of the Royal Commission; thirdly, to consult the other political parties, just for once, and make a genuine attempt to reach the most satisfactory solution. It would be eminently possible, for instance, to use the same machinery that was devised for the self-election of hereditary Peers to reduce the present large number of life Peers to manageable proportions. The final step is for the Government to get the resultant Bill through Parliament by their massive majority in another place, if necessary by making it a vote of confidence.
I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Acton, is shortly to return to the Benches opposite. Before it is too late perhaps he will remind his noble and right honourable friends of the saying of his illustrious forebear:
"All power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely".
This Government is closer to absolute power than any other since the 1840s. Corruption comes in many different forms and of these arrogance is by no means the least dangerous.
10.20 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow my old sparring partner the noble Lord, Lord Denham. He was a Chief Whip without peer.
Whether or not it is recognised as such, the strong message from both the report and previous speakers is that, in the light of the first stage reform, things will never be the same again. If, therefore, all aspects of life in the second Chamber are up for review I believe that the discussion should take into account the question of expenses, payments, allowances—call them what you will. If we are to have a changed, and changing, congregation that is younger, more specialist, more
1020
relevant and drawn from beyond the South East, we must look at how the future regime will be different from the present.
At this stage in the debate much of what can be said has been said. Yet I wish to take up a little more time on the section of the report of the Royal Commission which deals with an interest that affects every Member of this House, and any future House, whatever its shape or size. I refer to Chapter 17 of the report, which deals with resources. As to that, I am grateful for the remarks of my noble friend Lady Dean, the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, and perhaps others. I trust that there is near unanimity on the thrust of the point.
Bluntly, the chapter spells out the woefully inadequate way in which Members of this House are served. There is an old saying that the Lord helps those who help themselves. It is about time these Lords helped themselves, because nobody else will. I refer to paragraphs 17.3, 17.4, 17.7 and others. However, I draw particular attention to paragraph 17.10 on page 166, which precedes Recommendation 121:
"The question that arises now is whether any payment made in recognition of the time which members of the reformed second chamber devote to their Parliamentary duties should be related to attendance, or paid in the form of a salary regardless of attendance".
Recommendation 121 states—those who support the report in general subscribe to this view—that,
"Financial support for members of the reformed second chamber should he related to attendance in Parliament".
I also draw attention to Recommendation 124, which is equally important in the context of my remarks:
"The SSRB should consider the issue of severance payments and pension arrangements for members of the reformed second chamber".
All of us can speak from personal experience and that of others. Without exception, all my colleagues were willing volunteers in coming to this House and knew of the financial implications. It is neither sour grapes nor "snouts in the trough" to assert that in 2000 it is time to relate recompense or reward to the tasks ahead.
I plead the case, backing the report, for a more sensible package which will both attract and retain the interest and service of men and women who, even now, suffer financial burdens as a consequence of their attending here. A wide spectrum of financial circumstances is experienced by Members in this House. But that to me is a spur for review and change.
My experience over more than 16 years in this House, preceded by 10 years in another place, is that when it comes to looking after ourselves we can take lessons from the other place. Your Lordships' House is far too timid in pursuing such factors as accommodation, Members' facilities, payments and expenses. Some years ago the SSRB announced a programme of reviews. The first review involved Back-Benchers in the Commons. That review took place to their satisfaction. The second review related to Ministers in the Commons. That took place to their satisfaction. The third review related to Ministers in your Lordships' House. That review has taken place to their satisfaction. But the fourth estate, Back-Benchers

1021
in the House of Lords, has not been reviewed. Nothing has been done, although later this year the SSRB is scheduled to consider our case. I am not optimistic.
In 1996 the SSRB asked Hay Management Consultants to advise it. The consultants reported to the SSRB as follows:
"The impression from what we heard was that the present level of allowances is an uneasy compromise between the needs of those working Peers who have to resort to subsidising their own costs and the many others for whom the allowances represent a not ungenerous honorarium for making an appearance in the House".
The report continued:
"The near unanimous view of the Peers we interviewed is that the level of expenses and the support available to working Peers is insufficient to cover the costs involved and should be improved".
That was the recommendation of the consultants. Yet, when that recommendation, backed by evidence, went before the SSRB, it stated in paragraph 134 of its report:
"We have concluded that on the whole the level of Peers' allowances are appropriate".
In time this House will become a Chamber in which all those who attend will be workers. I firmly believe that a worker is worthy of his hire. No party point is made when I support the recommendation that not only should the present regime of allowances be enhanced but the additional allowance for attendance should be pursued without delay. Members of this Chamber—it is a bicameral system—do not receive one penny by virtue of membership. They have to claim the return of moneys spent on travel, overnight costs, subsistence and secretarial support. if the members of any other House of Parliament allow themselves to be treated so scurvily, I should like to hear of it.
I conclude by reiterating the thrust of my views. No one else will help us if we do not help ourselves. The report is a step in the right direction and it is to the section on resources and support for us and our work that I give my wholehearted approval.
10.28 p.m.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I start by misquoting Mark Anthony: I come to praise Wakeham, not to bury him. Indeed, the report contains many good and sensible recommendations. I think that on the powers and functions of the future second Chamber, the report gets it pretty much right. We do not want more powers than we have now. What we want, as the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, pointed out, is more authority to exercise our existing powers. We need more pre-legislative scrutiny. We need a strengthening of the committee system. I agree that the Salisbury convention should continue to apply.
Indeed, I have only one serious disagreement with the report on the powers and functions of the future second Chamber. Recommendations 41 and 42 suggest that if the second Chamber rejects a statutory instrument the other place could override that objection by a vote taken at any time within the next three months. If those recommendations were in force
1022
now the vote in your Lordships' House two weeks ago on the London freepost would have been overridden in the other place the next day.
I accept that it is illogical that your Lordships' House can block secondary legislation permanently, but can only delay primary legislation for a year. Perhaps there should be a restriction on our powers over secondary legislation to the imposition of a one-year delay to conform with our powers over primary legislation. But the delaying power measured in hours, which would be the result of Recommendations 41 and 42, would be futile.
What has caused me and my noble friend Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank the most concern is the report's proposals on the composition of the future second Chamber. But even here there are some good proposals. The report rightly rejects the idea of indirect elections; of elections by functional constituencies, as in Hong Kong, or, most ridiculously of all, by random selection. The report recognises that political parties will and must have a central role to play in the new second Chamber and that most of its members should be affiliated to a political party.
Another good thing is the proposal that the elected Members of a second Chamber should serve a single long term of office and at the end of that could not stand for re-election. It is important that the good features of your Lordships' House should be preserved. One feature is our ability to debate controversial issues on a party basis, without being unduly partisan or acrimonious. I fear that that would be lost if ambitious young politicians saw a spell in the second Chamber as a stepping stone to a career in the other place.
A rule that Members of the new second Chamber should be elected or appointed for a long term and could not stand for election to the other place during that time, even if they resigned their seats here, would effectively block the use of your Lordships' House as a half-way house on the way to the other place. Of course, in addition, the fact that terms of elected Members were not renewable would mean that they were under no constituency pressures and would have a greater degree of independence from the Whips. In all probability, the result would be that if such a system were adopted, your Lordships' House would continue to attract politicians whose career in the other place was over, rather than those whose career in the other place had yet to come. That is no bad thing—it is the way it works now and it works not too badly.
The Wakeham report is also right in proposing a second Chamber containing a mix of elected and appointed Peers, although I believe that they have got that mix wrong. But I agree with the principle of a mixed House with the independent Members of that House appointed by an appointments commission. I accept that a wholly elected House would create a danger of confrontation with the other place and would lead to the risk that the second Chamber would stop doing well what it now does well.
There are, however, some detailed aspects of the Wakeham report so far as they affect composition with which I disagree. I do not believe that serving Law

1023
Lords should be Members of your Lordships' House, nor do I agree with the retention of the ex officio membership of Church of England Bishops, even with reduced numbers. But, obviously, there would be representation of the Church of England, other Christian denominations and other faiths.
Those are important issues, but they are side issues which need a separate debate. The report also contains a useful proposal for the method of electing some Members of a future second Chamber. We have all heard about the three options. I believe that two of them must be ruled out at once. Option A is not a real election, but is simply a system by which the parties tell the electors who they intend to nominate the next time they get a chance to do so. Option B, which was said to have been favoured by the largest number of members of the commission, proposes that there should be elections, but only at intervals of 15 years. Frankly, that idea is so fantastic that I am amazed that it was even seriously considered.
However, option C provides a workable solution. It proposes the election of a third of the elected membership every five years, with each elected Member serving for 15 years. The details may not be quite right. I believe that perhaps the terms and the intervals between the elections are rather too long. However, the basic idea is perfectly good.
Having said that, I come now to what I see as the flaw at the heart of the report. I believe that it is an absolutely fundamental flaw. It is the proposal that the appointments commission should appoint not only the independent Members of the second Chamber but most of the political Members as well. The report suggests a second Chamber of around 550 Members. I agree that that is perhaps too large, but let us take that as a starting point. After deducting the Law Lords, the Bishops and the appointed independents, according to the Wakeham Commission, that leaves approximately 400 "politicals" to be appointed.
Of the three options offered by the report for election of the regional Members, the one that is by far the most generous—option C—still provides for only 195 elected Members. That leaves more than half the "politicals" (if I may call them that) to be appointed. Under option A, all would be appointed. Under option B, more than three-quarters would be appointed. I believe that that is neither right in principle nor workable.
First, the selection of members of the commission will be highly politicised. The report proposes that members of the commission should be nominated by the Leader of your Lordships' House after consultation with the leaders of the other party groups and the Convenor of the Cross-Benchers. That will lead to intensive horse-trading through the usual channels. I continue the equine analogy. Each party will have a strong incentive to press for good, sound, quiet horses which have been gelded, respond well to the bit and will not kick over the traces.
The report states that the appointments commission will occupy a position in respect of the second Chamber which is broadly comparable to that of the
1024
electoral commission, which is now in the process of being set up under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill in respect of the other place. However, the electoral commission will not elect Members of Parliament. The comparison is extremely far-fetched. I believe that there are no platonic guardians so independent, so unbiased, so omniscient and so resistant to pressure as to deserve membership of the appointments commission. However, if any such marvellous people exist, it is certain that they will not be appointed to that commission.
How, then, will the politicals be chosen? Will the commission exercise its own judgment and ignore the wishes of the party leaderships or will it be guided by those wishes? I have been to two meetings addressed by members of the commission, both of whom have spoken in the debate today. I asked both of them that question. One said that the commission will exercise its own judgment. It will select people from a wide spectrum of opinion across the membership of each party; for example, this member of the commission said that it would appoint Ken Livingstone. The other member said that the appointments commission would pay very great attention to the proposals from the party leaders. Therefore, it would nominate the occasional outsider, such as Ken Livingstone. The only common ground between them was that Ken Livingstone will become a Member of your Lordships' House. I have to say that that is a result which I do not expect to see.
How can an appointments commission dictate to a political party which of its members is to represent it in one of the two Houses of Parliament? But on the other hand, if the appointments commission accepts the recommendations from the party leadership, why involve the commission at all? Why not have some simple formula for the number of political appointments and leave the party leadership to get on with it?
Finally on this issue, I believe that it is constitutionally unacceptable for the appointments commission, which is not elected by anybody and is not in any real sense accountable to anybody, to appoint the majority of members of one of the two Houses of Parliament. That puts enormous power into the hands of a body which is not the right one to exercise it.
If anything, I believe that appointment by an appointments commission would be even less legitimate than appointment by the respective party leaders. At least they are elected to the other place by ordinary voters and elected to the leadership by the votes of members of their own party. In short, I believe that the report puts on the appointments commission a burden which it cannot bear and should not be asked to bear. I believe that there is no real alternative to the direct election of all the political members of the second Chamber.
In conclusion, I have found the debate today depressing. I have been amazed at what might be called the self-denying attitude of most speakers. They say, "We must not have real democractic legitimacy

1025
for the second Chamber because it would upset the House of Commons". But it is in the interests of this country that your Lordships' House should have the legitimacy to challenge the actions of the other place. Of course, primacy must and will rest with the other place, but an elective dictatorship is bad and your Lordships' House needs to have the authority to stand up against such a dictatorship. What we have seen in this debate, with some notable exceptions in the speeches of the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, the noble Lord, Lord Richard, and my noble friend Lord Smith of Clifton, is a pre-emptive cringe before the altar of the primacy of the other place.
10.42 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I rise rather earlier than I and other noble Lords had anticipated and for that I give thanks. It has been a long and interesting debate. But I do not believe that any of us will forget the vignette near the beginning. It will perhaps go into our diaries this evening when we go home or perhaps into the diaries of our wives or husbands if it is they who do the writing. It was the vignette of the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, who indicated, in the midst of his speech, that he had some agreement with the Government—I am paraphrasing and hope I have it right—that in exchange for good behaviour on the part of the Liberal Democrats they were promised proportionality with their election result. It was a most interesting little vignette which we shall all remember. We look forward to the public production of this document, if it exists.
The rest of the debate followed a reasonably predictable course. However, I believe that little more attention might have been given to the non-composition elements of my noble friend's report. I should not have been too surprised by the fact that not a great deal of attention was paid to the first few chapters. I believe that they are important. Perhaps I may quote the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, again without worrying him this time too much. He said, "Let's get on with those things on which we agree and can do now in this House." That is something we should take to heart. A few noble Lords echoed that kind of sentiment.
There are things we can do in this more legitimate House which will go some way along the road which the commission's report suggests. For example, I do not believe that many Members of your Lordships' House will disagree with the bulk of the recommendations in chapter 4. I heard no-one disagree although I believe the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, came closest to disagreeing with the proposition in Recommendation 2 that,
"the House of Commons should be the principal political forum and have the final say in respect of all major public policy issues".
That is something with which I entirely agree. Perhaps membership of the other place for a time makes one more conscious of its primacy. I have little doubt that that must remain the position. The rest of chapter 4 has recommendations with which we would virtually all agree. In fact, I do not believe that I heard anyone disagree that the Parliament Act position should
1026
remain. However, we should perhaps ensure that the Parliament Act as it stands cannot be reformed by use of the Parliament Act itself. That may be a sensible precaution given the very limited powers that remain to your Lordships' House that are unaffected by the Parliament Act. There were some very interesting and useful things, some of which could be put in place almost immediately in this reformed or partially reformed House.
The chapter on protecting the constitution could also be accepted. The noble Baroness, Lady Jay, agreed with the idea of having a constitutional committee in your Lordships' House and other of your Lordships who mentioned these issues talked about a committee on human rights. That could easily be agreed. We could do that now because it may be some time before we reach stage 2. Constitutional and human rights issues, especially perhaps the latter, will loom ever larger in the affairs of our country as my own country of Scotland is discovering almost daily in the courts where decisions are being made and questions raised in a way which no one ever thought would happen when Parliament agreed that the convention should be incorporated in Scots law with the devolution settlement.
There is perhaps less agreement over chapter 7 on delegated powers of legislation. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, and not with my noble friend Lord Wakeham that there will be no powers of delay in secondary legislation. As the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, pointed out, the very satisfactory negotiations with the Government, which is what we had after your Lordships took the rather bold step of rejecting a piece of secondary legislation, would not have been necessary at all. The Government could have had a vote down the corridor the next day and that would have been that.
At the risk of being critical of the commission, I think its members live in Cloud-cuckoo-land if they think that a report to the House of Commons about the reasons will do anything to influence the Government to depart from whatever course they have chosen. I am afraid governments understand losing Divisions. It is a simple fact of life among governments of all parties. They may not like it, but they understand it.
On delegated legislation, I would not suggest that we agree with the proposal from the Wakeham Commission. Frankly, if we did agree, we would probably vote down many more pieces of secondary legislation. I believe firmly, as I said the other day—although the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, said it rather better than I did—that, on a very limited number of occasions, perhaps your Lordships should use its power. However, the occasions should be very limited and we should think seriously before we do it. Indeed, when we did it a fortnight ago, we knew there was a vehicle to hand for the Government to use to reach a compromise with your Lordships. I think that that is right.
The powers suggested in these chapters are largely powers we have had and have perhaps not used to the extent we shall probably use them in the future. I am

1027
firmly of the view that none of these things conflicts with the position of the House of Commons. As I said, that always has to be borne in mind.
In some ways, that is the easy part. The difficult part is the composition of your Lordships' House. I note that the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, said, "We are a unitary parliamentary democracy." I have news for her. We are no longer a unitary parliamentary democracy. We have a devolved parliament in Scotland, a devolved assembly in Wales and I hope we are going to have again a devolved assembly in Northern Ireland. Therefore, I do not think we are a unitary parliamentary democracy. However, I believe that I understand what she meant, although it is not a description of where we now are.
There are two smaller "bits" that are perhaps easier to deal with in relation to composition. The first is the question of the Law Lords. I believe that only my noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour raised that issue. I was surprised that none of the Law Lords spoke in the debate this evening. They are not usually backwards in coming forwards, so to speak. A few lawyers spoke, but we always expect that. But in this House, there is a difference between lawyers and Law Lords. I shall not make any judgment on which is superior to the other in intellect and so on. That would be far too dangerous. I might be sued. In fact, I cannot be sued, but I shall resist the temptation.
My noble friend made an extremely valid point about the position of the Law Lords in your Lordships' House. I agree with the commission in that regard. They play a valuable part. We all understand the position which they hold in this House, and the system works perfectly well. I am resting on the firm advice given by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor that nothing in the European Convention on Human Rights will disturb the position of the Law Lords in your Lordships' House. As my noble friends behind me will confirm, I am doing that with both my fingers crossed behind my back.
I turn now to the question of the Lords spiritual. We heard from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford who made a very good case for the Lords spiritual being Members of your Lordships' House. As a member of the Church of Scotland, I should tell the House that we have an historical opposition to bishops. We got rid of them some 500 years ago, but I am rather more charitable than my forebears. I have heard the bishops make extremely important contributions to your Lordships' House.
However, it is right that we should bring in other religious faiths, other parts of the Christian community, and the other faiths which have strong representation in this country. Your Lordships will remember the important contribution which the late Lord Jakobovits made to your Lordships' House. We should bear in mind also future contributions from the noble Baroness, Lady Richardson of Calow, who comes from the Council of Free Churches in England.
1028
Therefore, I have no great problem with that proposal even though 10 of the bishops must, so to speak, "take the black spot", to use a previous term from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn.
That is quite easy, but when we come to the rest of it, the debate has ranged from arguments for a wholly appointed Chamber, to a few elected, to a few more elected, to a good few more elected, to 50 per cent elected, to two-thirds elected. For a long time, I thought that the bidding was going to stop there; then along came the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, who said that all Members should be elected. I was rather relieved when he did that because, otherwise, I should not have been able to present this as a rounded summary.
I listened with a great deal of care, as I always do, to my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth, to the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, and to a number of other noble Lords—namely, the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, and the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice—who seemed to favour having a wholly appointed House. I thought that my noble friend Lord Norton and the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, in particular addressed the issue of legitimacy in a convincing way. To a simpleton like me, it seemed that they were looking at Parliament as a whole and were saying that the legitimacy for the electorate is for the Members down there. They decide who is to be the government: they decide if a government are to be chucked out; they make those decisions. We have no part to play in that. We can defeat governments or not defeat governments: and they just carry on. But it is in the House of Commons where the democratic legitimacy resides in its entirety.
I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, made a telling point when he wondered whether the European Parliament is looked on as being any more legitimate today, elected, than it was before 1979 when its Members were appointed. If the turn-out for the European elections in this country is anything to go by, it is certainly not looked on with much favour as a democratic institution by our electorate. So the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, as always, made a very important point in that regard, as did my noble friend Lord Norton.
I am not really supposed to show that I have reached any great conclusion on this matter, but at the risk of sharing a confidence with your Lordships, my noble friend Lord Hurd of Westwell came nearest to persuading me that we should have a mixed House. He was quite convincing until other noble Lords spoke about it and decided to cast doubts on our ability to have a mixed House. I noticed that the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, said that the Government accepted the principle of a minority of elected representatives. She went on to say that she did not believe that there would be a problem of conflict with the position of MPs.
I should like to share with your Lordships what has happened in Scotland; it may just be teething troubles. There has been conflict within the Scottish Parliament between the two differently elected kinds of Member: between first-past-the-post and top-up Members—the

1029
latter are not dissimilar to what we might have here; between elected and appointed Members. There has also been quite severe conflict between the elected Members in Scotland and the House of Commons inside the same political party—not between members of different parties. Westminster MPs have been complaining about the behaviour of Members of the Scottish Parliament. They are trying to do the same kind of job for their constituents and are trampling over each other's territory in doing so. That is a severe danger.
Before we consider any elected representation your Lordships would be well advised to think carefully about the consequences which might arise from the conflicts which could appear in the constituencies. I understand the regional aspect. To be honest, I should not look on Members who were elected, if that was the way it was, as regional representatives. I should simply consider that we had to divide the country into regions in order to carry out the elections. But if we go down that road, we should go out of our way to ensure that such Members never become upper-class constituency MPs or upper House constituency MPs. Frankly, they should not be given the kind of constituency allowances and office suites given to Members of the other House. There should be a clear decision that they do not take up constituents' cases as if they were Members of the other place; otherwise, there will be huge conflict. It will not be about the powers of the two Houses, but about what the membership of each House actually does.
I have only one other point about the elections. I noticed that few noble Lords dealt with the elections. I am not surprised. I regret to say to my noble friend Lord Wakeham that the system laid out in the report is rather complicated. I saw in the middle of it, the words, "closed list". My Lords, no! Whatever else we do, we must not allow closed lists or even partially closed lists, whatever they are, for elections here. We really must learn from the dreadful turn-out, the disinterest and so on at the European elections. We were told that list systems would bring people out in droves to vote, but they kept them away in droves. But it is more than that. If we want to go down the road of elections to this House, we must try to ensure that the claws of the political parties are not deep in the decisions and that the electorate is allowed to decide inside each party whom it would prefer to see here. In that way, we shall get some independent people and people with independent minds.
Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, I believe that the long term of tenure is right. I should not allow re-election should we go down that road. The reason that I should not do so is that it is re-election which gives the Whips in the other place a bit of control over their Members. What is the point of having this House entirely controlled by the Whips in the same way as is the Commons? I notice that the Chief Whip is looking at me rather quizzically, but that is exactly what I think.
Where do we go from here? The noble Lord, Lord Butler, wisely said that he did not believe that between now and the next election was a good period
1030
in which to expect any agreement between the parties on the matter. He is probably right. If I recall correctly, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, claimed that he had stood for election only once and had been successful and that that was to be chairman of the Bar Council. I am sure that the noble and learned Lord will be able from his experience to give me his "advice"—I believe that that is the word—without payment, of course, on these questions: do the Government accept that there should be no diminution of the powers of your Lordships' House? Do they accept that we should be able to amend rather than just reject secondary legislation? Will they now, in this House, set up a constitutional committee and a human rights committee, or a committee covering both?
Can we for a moment discuss the appointments commission? Will the Government forget the kind of interim appointments commission which they are suggesting? This has taken them an awfully long time, considering that I was told when your Lordships passed an amendment to the House of Lords Bill that stopped it dead in its tracks. The House of Lords Bill was passed a long time ago, as your Lordships will remember. The appointments commission has still to be appointed. I believe one should be set up along the lines proposed by my noble friend Lord Wakeham. We could get on with that now and we could use the Bill of my noble friend Lord Kingsland as a vehicle for the creation of a proper appointments commission.
Lastly, will we have a Joint Committee of both Houses? If so, will it be set up in this Parliament? Like my noble friend Lord Strathclyde, I cannot resist the temptation of reminding the noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams of M ostyn, of Labour's manifesto—my bedtime reading. It says that a Joint Committee should,
"conduct a wide-ranging review of possible further change and then bring forward proposals for reform".
Surely the Government will not kick over one of the pledges in their own manifesto.
11 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, at about 3.15 p.m. my noble friend the Leader of the House said that she was opening the debate with great enthusiasm. At about 11 o'clock I am, with pulsating enthusiasm, about to close it.
It is curious, with certain notable, not to say notorious exceptions, how consistent a thread of consensus there has been in the debate. I believe that already this House is equipped to carry out its proper work, which can never remain static, in a better way. As a number of noble Lords have said, I believe it has begun to be reinvigorated and much more effective.
During the many days when I sat listening to your Lordships discuss reform generally, one or two phrases stuck in my mind. I hope your Lordships will not think it invidious if I repeat what the noble Lord. Lord Elton, said vis-à-vis the general position of the hereditary element in your Lordships' House as it then was. He said that he was content to go, though not

1031
without regret, as long as he was morally satisfied that a new second Chamber would be better than the one in which he had served in the past. In all humility I have always thought that was a proper test to apply. Our discussions this evening encourage me, and I hope the noble Lord, Lord Elton, and those of similar views, to think on the basis of this report—which is a considerable achievement indeed, if one bothers to read it as opposed to reading summaries in newspapers—that we have the opportunity to move forward with all deliberate speed to reform.
It is short-sighted and foolish to say we should take a little piece of this and a little piece of that and address it all at once. It is short-sighted and foolish on at least two bases: first, we have the advice given to us by the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, not to cherry-pick; and secondly, we need to heed the advice of the noble Lord, Lord Denham, that, if we are embarked on constitutional change, we ought, if at all possible, to do it on a comprehensive basis. We want consensus. It is idle to think of having a Joint Committee unless the general parameters of agreement in this House have already been established for that Joint Committee.
Let us also not forget that, although we are reforming and reinvigorating ourselves with a transfusion of new ideas, we are not the only determining Chamber in this matter. I take the example of the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, who said, for instance, that in the context of secondary legislation it is not our business alone. The other Chamber has a legitimate interest in that and plainly, as everyone in your Lordships' House knows, the other Chamber has not debated these issues.
If we as a government say that we want to have consensus, that we want to hear different views, I readily accept the indication given, again by the noble Lord, Lord Elton—I hope this does not qualify him for expulsion from his party—that we have to bear in mind that these are constitutional arrangements for the future. So we are trustees, as he said, and we should be servants to a greater purpose than our present convenience.
I take the noble Lord's point and the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham explicitly here and constantly in the report, that we are not here to construct constitutional edifices simply because the Labour Party at the moment and for the next few years is likely to be in power and presently has a substantial majority. My immediate instinct, being an unsophisticated country boy once upon a time, was that there ought to be a wholly elected second Chamber. The more I read the report and listened to the arguments, the more, I regret to say, I realised that I had been wrong.
If there had been a wholly elected Chamber at the time of the last election, we would have ended up with a significant—some would say powerful—majority in the Commons, and a similar powerful majority here. That would not have been good for our country and our horizons should not be limited simply by the fact
1032
that we are in government at the moment and in some years' time another party opposite may have its opportunity.
It was interesting to me to hear quite unambiguously what the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, said; namely, that the official Opposition support an elected element, which means inevitably that they support the dual system identified by the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham. We deceive ourselves and look at it in an unduly simplistic way if we believe that, because the origin of Members here is different, there are necessarily two tiers. The hereditary Peers here worked amicably together with the lifers. And of course the bishops are here only on a temporary basis—though I appreciate they are spiritual and not temporal. They are here ex officio but only while they hold their see. Similarly, the Law Lords are here ex officio, but they continue in their place, to our infinite pleasure, after they retire from sitting in what is our Supreme Court. Nobody asserts that any of the Law Lords' contributions are better or worse in their essential nature than any contributions from the right reverend Prelates. That is a bogus argument which has no real validity when one looks at it.
I appreciate that the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, wanted as much as 50 per cent of elected representation, and others held different views. That does not derogate from my point that there is virtual unanimity, apart from the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, in relation to the dual composition which is set out. There is room for argument. I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, readily agrees with his colleagues on the commission that there is room for improvement in the possible models put forward.
It was said by the noble Lord, Lord Norton, that our approach to House of Lords reform is somehow different in nature and essence from our approach to other constitutional reform. That is a misreading of the situation. It ought not to be overlooked that one of the most fundamental constitutional changes that this Government have introduced—I suggest that it may well be the most fundamental one—is the introduction of the Human Rights Act. Once that is embodied in the fabric and full heart of our society, nothing will ever be the same again. We did that deliberately; not because we had not thought of the consequences; not because we did not anticipate legal challenge in Scotland; of course we did. That is why people were trained to deal with the legal challenges in Scotland, Wales and in the rest of the United Kingdom. That is a significant constitutional advance because it devolves power from the centre to the individual. That is what devolution to Scotland and Wales is all about.
If there are sniggers (apparently there are occasionally) in relation to what has been happening in Cardiff, I say this. There were different views as to who should be First Secretary. Those have now been resolved. But if we devolve power, we devolve trust. And it is a foolish person with no experience of constitutional political arrangements who does not imagine that in the earlier years there may be some difficulties.

1033
It is interesting to bear in mind one or two historical perspectives. We have not been the grateful recipients of 1,000 years of parliamentary democracy. I shall repeat, I hope for the last time, that in this country women did not get the vote on the basis of equality until after the First World War. It is no good saying that 1832 changed everything. It hardly helped at all to enfranchise the working class. In fact, it did nothing for the working class and it was like drawing teeth to secure even the most modest improvement.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, that the other issues, although they have not received headline attention either in the newspapers and political tracts, or indeed, in your Lordships' House this evening, are extremely important. Over the past nine years since I have been here, our House has been evolving. Perhaps I may call it the Alexander committee. Effectively, that has needed no more powers to be given to it, but it has given itself legitimacy because it has produced its own authority. The House of Commons has legitimacy because the electorate donate it that legitimacy on the occasion of every general election. But the Alexander committee—it is a very important example—has acquired its own authority. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, that it has therefore acquired its own legitimacy because of its own productivity.
I believe that there is a great deal of work to be done on devising ways in which we can develop committees. I agree entirely, although not necessarily on the same basis addressed by my noble friend Lord Graham of Edmonton, that the question of resources is extremely important. It is not a question of resources in the sense of whether Ministers are properly remunerated. Plainly there is only one answer to that question. It is a question of resources in terms of whether we ask too much of our committee Clerks. The answer is yes. Are we giving people the necessary resources and back-up facilities to do the work they do, in some circumstances, infinitely better than some committees—I am speaking very quietly indeed now—which operate at the other end of this Palace? I believe that those are advances upon which we all ought to be able to agree.
I was genuinely surprised to see such a degree of agreement and consensus, because I had not anticipated it. I think there has been a cooling of passions and calming of disappointments and distress, which were inevitable given that some hereditary Peers left unhappily and unwillingly. That cooling period, which has been used by the commission to get on with its work, is capable of being of great benefit to our House.
My noble friend the Leader of the House said that she would not be addressing and dealing with particulars today. That is the right way to approach this. Only a foolish person would read the Wakeham Commission report and come to immediate conclusions. I believe that noble Lords are quite right to say that we do have more than a passing duty to listen to views, not least views from the other end of the corridor, because they have an interest in what we do and it is a proper, lawful, constitutional interest.
1034
I hope that we do get on now. Speaking as neutrally as I can, we have not waited 90 years and invested all those hours of fascinating, non-repetitious discussion of these various issues which have so concerned us, to have no outcome other than the departure of most of the hereditary Peers. That would be a pretty indecent and craven outcome. We want to move forward.
As my noble friend the Leader of the House said earlier, we have started discussions. I know that she has had discussions with some of the opposition parties. I pay tribute to the generous way in which a response has come from the main opposition party—I am using those words fairly carefully because I cannot say that all responses to her requests have always been generous or full-hearted. We have had good discussions so far with the Leader of the Liberal Democrat Party and the Convenor of the Cross-Bench Peers. We have made inquiries as to what is wanted by our colleagues in Scotland and Northern Ireland. There is a real opportunity here for those who reel that their voices have not been heard sufficiently still to feel themselves bound in to the constitutional settlement that we have in this country.
One thing about this country that I believe is good is the fact that it is capable of periodic, organic renewal and change. For too long in past years, that change has not been occurring. No one wants a revolution, but we can work together to get a workable, sensible outcome that will, as the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, said, have to derive its authority from acceptance by the public.
The noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, is absolutely right in this respect. I do not believe that those members of the public who tick the box—that is, the 89 per cent, or whatever the figure happens to be at that particular moment; it seems to vary—want the dead hand of party political organisation to strangle this House. If we had a wholly-elected House, which, apparently, the 89 per cent want at one time or another, that is what we would end up with. We would have no Law Lords and no Cross-Benchers because, in the nature of things, they will not be willing to stand for election. In any event, no one can be elected in our modern world without the organisation, the determination and the finances of political parties.
That system works well in the House of Commons, at present; but it would not work here if we want an independent House which would, within appropriate, prudent and agreed limits, be there as a check and a balance on the power of the House of Commons. We ought to be able to advise: to do so we need to be informed and resourced. We ought to be able to give guidance. But we ought always to remember that they are supreme in our settlement; indeed, I have heard no dissent from that proposition. The fact that they are supreme does not make them dictators over us. However, if they are not to be dictators over us, we need to do our work properly, prudently and cooperatively.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord concludes, perhaps he could answer two questions. He made a very clever and, I thought, broadly very sensible speech—if that is not

1035
impertinent to the noble and learned Lord. However, am I right in thinking that he said that the Government's position is that stage two reform is an all-or-nothing approach; in other words, there can be no cherry picking? Therefore, as he disagrees with that, does this mean that we can go forward and implement aspects of the Wakeham Commission's recommendations before we see what the final stage two proposal is? Does it also mean that we could go forward and have a constitutional committee, a human rights committee and, possibly, a statutory appointments committee?
Secondly, perhaps the noble and learned Lord could clarify this point, which I did not catch in his response. Is he saying that there can be no Joint Committee of both Houses until all the parties agree on a proposal put before them? Alternatively, does the noble and learned Lord intend to establish the Joint Committee before that position is reached?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the noble Lord has asked two distinct questions, which ought to be kept separate. The first question was whether there is any area or "aspect" of either the Wakeham recommendations or of our deliberations today that could usefully be put into effect. Plainly, the answer to
1036
that question is yes. There may be particular aspects of resource as regards committees, and other aspects of that sort. We ought to be very careful about falling into the trap that we know perfectly well of saying, "Let's have an appointments committee", and nothing else would happen. That is the answer to the first question. One would have to look at the matter deliberately, carefully and discreetly—and I use that term in both senses.
I am afraid that I have momentarily forgotten the noble Lord's second question. I am so sorry; it was an involuntary amnesia, not a wilful one. It seems to us that the Joint Committee has work to do of this nature. It needs to establish the general consensus—I imagine that it will never be a perfect one—and then it will have to attend to the parliamentary devices that will be needed to put that consensus into effect. The one thing we do not want is another visitation to the ground that has already been traversed by the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, to see if those conclusions can be second-guessed. Otherwise, it will be 1968 all over again. Time is passing and my life is simply not long enough to contemplate it.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty minutes past eleven o'clock.

  General Pinochet
  General Pinochet
  Equal Opportunities Commission
  Equal Opportunities Commission
  OFSTED Press Statements
  OFSTED Press Statements
  Chernobyl Disaster and Cancer Deaths
  Chernobyl Disaster and Cancer Deaths
  Long-term Care Insurance
  Long-term Care Insurance
  National Cycle Network
  National Cycle Network
  Millennium Dome Site: Sale Terms
  Millennium Dome Site: Sale Terms
  Midwives: Local Policy Involvement
  Midwives: Local Policy Involvement
  Diazinon: Stabiliser Use in Pesticides
  Diazinon: Stabiliser Use in Pesticides
  Chernobyl Disaster: Livestock Movement Restrictions
  Chernobyl Disaster: Livestock Movement Restrictions