Sitting of 17 January 2001

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
  CABINET OFFICE
  The Minister was asked—
  CABINET OFFICE

    E-envoy
    Mr. Derek Wyatt: When the appointment of the e-envoy will be announced. [144195]
    The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Mr. Ian McCartney): The selection is being overseen by the civil service commissioners and is being made in accordance with the civil service commissioners' rules for recruitment to the civil service.
    The selection panel consists of the first civil service commissioner, Baroness Prashar; Mavis McDonald, the permanent secretary to the Cabinet Office; Nick Montagu, chairman of the Board of Inland Revenue; and Iain Anderson, the former adviser to tilt Prime Minister on millennium bug issues. Interviews were completed with candidates earlier this week.
    Once the selection panel has reached a decision, the appointment has to be approved by die Prime Minister on the recommendation of the head of the home civil service, with the agreement of myself and my hon. Friend the Minister for Small Business and E-Commerce. The formal announcement of the appointment will be placed in the House of Commons Library as soon as the selection process has been completed.
    Mr. Wyatt: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Does he share my view that, with the publication of the communications White Paper—which might lead to a new Department after the next election—we need an internet Minister first, rather than a new e-envoy?
    Mr. McCartney: I did not quite catch the gist of my hon. Friend's question, but I think that it was about the Government's current and future proposals for the management of Government policy in respect of e-Government issues. My hon. Friend the Minister for Small Business and E-Commerce is responsible for co-ordinating the whole e-agenda. I am responsible for the e-Government agenda and the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, my hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon (Mr. Wills), is responsible
    328
    for access to skills. Of course, we also have a champion for the e-agenda at Cabinet level: my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.
    Mr. Michael Fabricant: Although I am sure that the whole House will be thrilled at the knowledge that a new e-envoy is shortly to be found, why did the Government state on the resignation of Alex Allan back in October, when it had been known for some time that he would resign in October, that a replacement would be found in December? It now seems that a replacement will not be found much before February.
    Mr. McCartney: There has been absolutely no delay and an announcement will be made soon. Not only has there been no delay, but we immediately appointed an acting e-envoy, someone with considerable experience, who has continued the work. As a consequence of that, we are able to announce today that we are ahead of our target for the number of services already on the internet. More than 40 per cent. are already on it and we are ahead of delivering our target in 2005.
    Mr. Ken Purchase: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the most important aspect of e-commerce is the effect that it has on opportunities for British exporters? Therefore, alongside the services that we have for e-commerce and e-business generally, we need to create more opportunities for those setting up websites and entering e-commerce to learn basic business skills, so that they can offer the support to their clients and customers overseas that good business men always try to offer.
    Mr. McCartney: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is why my hon. Friend the Minister for Small Business and E-Commerce and my colleagues at the Department for Education and Employment have put a huge multimillion pound project in place to give help, advice and training not only to individuals, but to small businesses in particular. The programme will deliver for the United Kingdom the best environment in Europe for doing e-business, both here and abroad.
    Mr. Crispin Blunt: I, along with all other hon. Members, have received a letter from the Lord Chancellor's Department giving details of how an extra £54 million will be spent in the Court Service. However, the expenditure of that money is subject to the approval of the e-envoy. Why?
    Mr. McCartney: We announced in the review of information technology projects—99.9 per cent. of them were mistakes left by the previous Government—that we would put in place systems to ensure that, where Departments roll out programmes and technology, those programmes fit a system so that, when they are rolled out, they will be successful and have a rigorous business plan attached to them. The proposals that we set out in the document on improving information technology have been signed up to by all Ministers and all Departments. That will ensure that, in future, IT programmes in any Department will be of high quality. When they go online, they will work successfully.

    Next Steps Agencies
    Dr. Alan Whitehead: What plans she has to review the attachment of next steps agencies to Government Departments. [144197]
    The Minister for the Cabinet Office (Marjorie Mowlam): Next steps agencies are subject to regular reviews, usually at five-yearly intervals. These examine all status options, including the positioning of the agency under review within a given Department.
    Dr. Whitehead: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does she accept that the positioning of the next steps agencies within particular Departments owed more to their origin within those Departments than to their function? Does she agree that, after 12 years of their working, a review of functions would be appropriate, with a view to ensuring that the agencies are appropriately placed?
    Marjorie Mowlam: I take my hon. Friend's point, which I can assure him has not been ignored, because it is one that the Department has spent some time considering. As I said in answer to his first question, we review the agencies every five years, and they are also under constant yearly review, and the issue that he raised is included in that process. We have not changed the host Department of any agency, but we have much more cross-cutting work between Departments and agencies so that their public service agreements are shared and their production is maximised.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: One understands why the next steps agencies were set up, but is the Minister convinced that there is proper scrutiny of those agencies by Parliament?
    Marjorie Mowlam: From where I sit, yes. We scrutinise well, and if Parliament does not scrutinise the agencies, that is Parliament's responsibility, not mine. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we do not let the agencies go unscrutinised. They perform an important function in the delivery of programmes, and I assure him that if there is inefficiency or ineffectiveness, we will not let it grow.
    Mr. Gerald Kaufman: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the Conservative Government's creation of the next steps agencies—organisations that dispose of countless billions of pounds of public money and have intimate dealings with many millions of our fellow citizens—was one of that Government's most disgraceful innovations, as it destroyed genuine parliamentary accountability? Does she agree that no more of those agencies should be created and that the reincorporation of their functions within Departments for which Ministers are responsible to this House will be as significant in advancing democracy as the previous Government's action was in destroying it?
    Marjorie Mowlam: I hear what my right hon. Friend is saying. I assure him that we do not let next steps agencies act as free agents. There is constant review and
    330
    monitoring of their actions. I must add that there are more ways to achieve accountability, transparency and good delivery of public services than through Departments.
    Mr. John Bercow: Since the attachment of the next steps agencies to Departments, how much money have they saved through market testing, and how does that figure compare with the savings achieved by the Departments themselves?
    Marjorie Mowlam: I am afraid that I do not have those figures at my fingertips, but I shall certainly let the hon. Gentleman have them.

    E-services
    Mr. John Healey: If she will make a statement on progress towards meeting the 2005 targets for making Government information and services available electronically. [144198]
    The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Mr. Ian McCartney): Yesterday, I laid before the House the latest report on progress towards the target that by 2005 all Government service; should be online. The report shows that for the whole of central Government, 42 per cent. of those services are now online, which is well in excess of the interim target of having 25 per cent. of Government services online by 2002.
    A leading example of the progress that we are making is the development of the UK online citizen portal, which offers a new way to access all UK Government information and services available online. For example, a "life events" area of the portal takes situations important to many people, such as having a baby or moving house, and pulls together packages of information and services in one convenient place.
    Mr. Healey: Dots my hon. Friend agree that wider provision of e-information and e-services by Government is only one side of the coin, and that the other is having more people gaining e-access? Does he recognise the potential of digital television, and will he and his colleagues ensure that the Government put it to the test in technology pilots?
    Mr. McCartney: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Digital television will indeed play a major part in access to Government services, both for information and for doing business. The technology has only recently become commercially available, but the Government are working with the industry. We have already issued interim framework policy guidelines for digital television, and there are several pilot projects in the Department for Education and Employment and the Department of Health. Over time, digital television will allow people to do business with local and central Government from their own home.
    Mr. Andrew Lansley: I am interested in the Minister's comments about digital television, because according to the Government's own report, of the 521 Government services projected to be delivered in 2005, only six will be delivered through interactive television. Chasing Government targets is like searching for a mirage, because the structure of the reports

    331
    has entirely changed; so will he help me? A year ago, the Government's progress report said that at the end of 1999 capability for electronic service delivery was 36 per cent.; now, the Government say that 42 per cent. has been achieved, which represents a peat triumph in the intervening year. Will he explain that apparent lack of progress and tell us how much take-up has increased on last year's figure of 17 per cent? [Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. There is far too much conversation in the Chamber. The House must come to order before the Minister replies.
    Mr. McCartney: Those comments are a bit rich coming from a member of a party whose Government did nothing about e-commerce or e-technology during their 18 years in office. In my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Healey), I stated quite clearly that we are ahead of the schedule. We have advanced the target from 2008 to 2005 and extended the 2002 target from 25 per cent. to 42 per cent. In addition, in the first few weeks after the introduction of UK Online, 5 million citizens used it to access services—the equivalent of the population of Scotland. That is not a bad start, given that we were at zero when we took over from the previous Government.
    Mr. Lansley: The decibel level rises the more the Minister is in trouble. Let me ask him to consider quality. The Inland Revenue has introduced online self-assessment tax returns, and I estimate that there are about 12,000 visitors a day to the website, but only 26,000 returns have been filed in the past six months. What proportion of those who access the Inland Revenue website successfully file a return electronically—what is the take-up?
    Mr. McCartney: The hon. Gentleman tries to use a fog of statistics. Let us be absolutely clear. For example, MAFF—
    Mr. John BercowSpit it out!
    Mr. McCartney: The hon. Gentleman might want to spit, but I am a rather more sophisticated individual than he is and I like to put my brain in gear before using my mouth.
    To return to the question asked by the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley), on 25 January the Government gateway goes live for business registration and enrolment for online services from Customs and Excise and for applications through the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for common agricultural policy aid schemes, in addition to Inland Revenue end-of-year transactions. In mid-March, we go live for business transactions for those Departments, with Customs and Excise following by the end of March and the Inland Revenue in April. Bit by bit, we are implementing a rolling programme for the introduction of services, which is something that the previous Government did not even attempt.
    Mr. Lansley: I am grateful to the Minister, but he has not answered a single question. Let me ask him once more: if take-up was 17 per cent. a year ago, what is it now? If capability was 36 per cent a year ago, why is it only 42 per cent. now? What about cost? There is no
    332
    re-engineering of government going on in all that, only an extension of capability to internet or digital television. How much will the programme cost, and what benefit in terms of savings will accrue?
    Mr. McCartney: The hon. Gentleman has changed tack again. The fact is that we are ahead of target in terms of the use of the internet and putting transactions in place; we are ahead of target in access to information and in sorting out the problems created by the previous Government. We have a multimillion-pound programme of investment in modernising the public sector and Government. The Conservatives' £16 billion cuts in public services would undermine what we are doing to modernise Government. [Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I say again to hon. Members that the House is far too noisy, which is unfair to those who have asked a question and want to hear the answer.

    Ombudsman Review
    Tony Wright: When she expects to introduce legislation to implement the recommendations of the ombudsman review. [144200]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr. Graham Stringer): This major review has elicited 250 responses. The Government are looking in great detail at these responses and the evaluation of them will be announced before Easter.
    Tony Wright: I am grateful for that answer. My hon. Friend will know that we had the ombudsman review because ombudsmen came to the Government and said, "Our work is being impeded, particularly where the boundaries cross health and social services, for example, because we cannot run a seamless, integrated service." The Government are to be congratulated on initiating the review, but will they now give a commitment to bringing forward early legislation to implement it?
    Mr. Stringer: As my hon. Friend knows, I cannot pre-empt decisions on the next legislative programme. I agree that an extremely important review is taking place. The ombudsmen told us that they were not working as efficiently and effectively as they could. We accepted that, and that is why the review is taking place.
    On the other side of the equation are those who use the ombudsman service. We must ensure that the service is accessible, and we shall do that by taking into account many of the comments that have been made. It is worth bringing it to the House's attention that some of those comments are asking for further reviews in areas that are currently considered out of bounds by the ombudsmen. It is part of our modernisation programme to get the ombudsman service right, and it is important that we do so, rather than hurrying the process.
    Mr. Paul Tyler: I shall raise an issue that relates both to the Cabinet Office's responsibility for the future of the ombudsmen and to the co-ordination of rural policy. Is the Minister aware that there is real resentment and frustration among farmers in England and Wales at the fact that there is no effective external and independent arbiter of maladministration and

    333
    mismanagement of many issues within the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, while there is one in Scotland? How soon will the Minister's proposals for introducing a more effective tribunal be available for us to see? Will they cover issues other than the integrated administration and control system concerns?
    Mr. Stringer: The hon. Gentleman is extending the review to areas that are not covered by the question. It is clear that people in rural areas as well as in urban areas benefit from the service of the ombudsmen. Improvements in the efficiency and effectiveness of that service will help people in rural areas.

    Departmental Staff Numbers
    Mr. Christopher Chope: How many people are employed in her Department; and if she will make a statement on the equivalent figure in April 1997. [144202]
    The Minister for the Cabinet Office (Marjorie Mowlam): The number of people employed in my Department, including agencies, on 1 April 2000 was 2,040 and on 1 April 1997, 2,623: a difference of 583.
    Mr. Chope: I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for that response. Given the overall figures for the civil service, there has been an increase of about 15,000 in one year. Does she not think it rather a perverse sense of priorities on the part of the Government that they find it easy to recruit new bureaucrats to deal with red tape and the propaganda machine, including special advisers, while at the same time reducing the number of policemen? Surely it would be better for the Government to comply with the people's sense of priorities—more police and fewer bureaucrats.
    Marjorie Mowlam: Let us start with the facts. Spending on central administration is down since 1997. The numbers of civil servants are down by 8,000 since 1997. I accept that there has been a small increase this year, and that relates to programmes that we want to put in place, such as pensions increases. We want to deal with fraud, the implementation of child support reforms and immigration cases. That is why there has been an increase in the numbers of civil servants over the past year.
    As the Neill committee said, there is no objection to special advisers. I readily acknowledge that their numbers have increased. That is because of the volume of legislation on which we are working. We have been open and transparent. We have published what they are paid. We have a code, we have guidelines for civil servants and special advisers, and we have a model contract. Nothing has been hidden from the public and the information is in the public domain. On the first point, I believe that the hon. Gentleman has his facts wrong. Secondly, what we are doing is perfectly clear.
    Mr. John McFall: My right hon. Friend will be aware that last year the Public Accounts Committee, in its report "Government on the Web", said that the Cabinet Office did not know how many websites
    334
    there were or whether they conformed to good practice. Have my right hon. Friend's officials dealt positively with that criticism?
    Marjorie Mowlam: Yes, I can assure my hon. Friend that they have.
    Dr. Julian Lewis: One group of civil servants where there has clearly been a huge increase are the political civil servants, the special advisers. Will the right hon. Lady give an undertaking to match the Conservative pledge to reduce the number of special advisers to their far more modest level when the Government took office in 1997?
    Marjorie Mowlam: I partly answered that question in reply to the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope). No, we will not. We have never denied that we want special advisers to assist us in the volume of legislation that we are putting through. The hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. If he does not want the civil service to be politicised, special advisers perform an important role. As the head of the civil service, Sir Richard Wilson, said, to suggest that 73 special advisers will swamp 3,000 high-level civil servants is a myth.

    Government Regulation
    Ms Ruth Kelly: What discussions she has had with business people on the impact of Government regulation. [144203]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr. Graham Stringer): My hon. Friends and I have regular meetings with all sections of business. Yesterday, I visited the constituency of the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) and talked to representatives of its chamber of commerce and a number of businesses. Last week, I attended a debate organised by the Social Market Foundation with the chief executive of the British Chambers of Commerce.
    Ms Kelly: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government's approach to dialogue with trade unions and business, as manifested in the setting up of the Low Pay Commission, is the best way of building consensus and driving forward social change? Will my hon. Friend consider setting up a similar body to drive through and monitor the recommendations that will follow the consultation on the Government's Green Paper on working parents, so that we can further improve the lot of workers?
    Mr. Stringer: My hon. Friend makes a good point. There is no doubt that the Low Pay Commission has been successful in improving the pay and working conditions of many British people. I hear what my hon. Friend says and we shall consider that point.
    Mr. Graham Brady: How many of the 100,000 manufacturing jobs that have

    335
    been lost in the past 12 months does the Minister ascribe to the increase in the regulatory burden under this Government?
    Mr. Stringer: As the hon. Gentleman knows, that figure is considerably less than the number of jobs lost every year in the industrial sector under the Conservative Government. If the hon. Gentleman cares to consider Britain's regulatory performance as against that of comparable countries, he can look to the report of The Economist Intelligence Unit, which found that, taking into account 70 different factors, among comparable countries Britain was the best placed for foreign investment.
    Mr. Peter L. Pike: Will my hon. Friend confirm that, with the regulatory reform legislation going through the other place, it is the Government's objective to get rid of unnecessary and unhelpful regulation and move increasingly to good and positive regulation which will help British industry and people?
    Mr. Stringer: My hon. Friend is right. We shall not repeat some of the simplistic and asinine comments made by the previous Administration who, for example, said that they would burn vast amounts of red tape, yet proceeded to introduce 13 times as many petty regulations as existed before. As my hon. Friend knows, the Regulatory Reform Bill seeks to remove unnecessary red tape, particularly that resulting from overlapping regulatory regimes. We have put before Parliament a number of examples of how that legislation will improve regulations.

    Government Secure Intranet
    Mr. Richard Allan: What the impact is on the Government secure intranet of the implementation of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. [144204]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr. Graham Stringer): The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act has had a minor impact on the Government secure intranet. The lawful business practice regulations—the Telecommunications (Lawful Business Practice) (Interception of Communications) Regulations 2000—authorise interception of communications in certain cases that would otherwise be prohibited by section 1 of the Act. Where such cases apply to the Government secure intranet, obligations under relevant laws will, of course, be met.
    Mr. Allan: This is obviously a complex technical issue. If the Minister does not have the facts at his fingertips, will he undertake to write to me about certain aspects of the implementation of the Act? First, what is the Government's policy on retaining data on the GSI to comply with requests from the law enforcement agencies? Secondly, what is their policy on intercepting e-mails from their employees in the Departments that use the GSI? Finally, what are their estimates of the costs to the GSI of complying with requests from the law enforcement agencies?
    Mr. Stringer: As the hon. Gentleman said, those are highly detailed and technical questions, and I am happy to write to him on those issues.

  The Prime Minister was asked—
  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Phil Sawford: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 17 January.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Sawford: Among my right hon. Friend's bedtime reading last night, did he happen to notice an article in the Kettering Evening Telegraph reporting a 9.5 per cent. cut in crime in Northamptonshire last year? Will he join me in congratulating Northamptonshire police and the wider community on that tremendous achievement?
    The Prime Minister: Unaccountably, the Kettering Evening Telegraph was not among my bedtime reading. However, I know officers and civilian staff of the Northamptonshire police and would like to congratulate them on achieving a 9.5 per cent. cut in crime. Of course, we know that there are still real problems with both violent crime and police recruitment, which need to be addressed. However, I am delighted to tell my hon. Friend that, as a result of the extra investment that the Government are putting in over the next three years, there will be an additional 90 recruits for the police service in Northamptonshire.
    Mr. William Hague: The Prime Minister has already commented on the deeply disturbing case that has come to attention this week involving baby twins being bought and sold over the internet. It cannot be right for children to be sold to the highest bidder. The Prime Minister will obviously want to co-operate as much as possible with other countries to prevent any more such cases and to ensure that laws against baby trading are as tight as possible.
    Does the Prime Minister agree that one way of reducing the chances of further such cases arising is to press ahead with much-needed reform of adoption law in this country? Will he accept our assurance, first given in debate on the Queen's Speech, that he would have the full support of the Opposition if he were to introduce legislation in this Session? Will he now undertake to do that?
    The Prime Minister: I entirely agree with what the right hon. Gentleman said about that particular case. I think that everyone feels that it is deplorable that children are traded in that way. Adoption should always be about putting the interests of the child first.
    We are committed to making adoption easier, and we published a White Paper on that shortly before Christmas. We shall press ahead, and intend to introduce legislation on it in this Session. I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's support, and I hope that perhaps I can come back to him later with details of how and when we can press ahead with that legislation.

    337
    In addition, it may be of interest to the House to know that the Adoption (Intercountry Aspects) Act 1999 will be brought into force later this year. That legislation was passed by the House some time ago and will set in place proper rules and standards to be applied in any case involving intercountry adoption. This is obviously a serious and difficult situation, but it is right that we should legislate on adoption in this country as soon as possible, and then get regulations on the statute book that deal with intercountry adoption.
    Mr. Hague: I acknowledge and welcome what the Prime Minister has said, especially about introducing legislation in this Session. The White Paper to which he referred received a warm welcome from the Opposition. If, for any reason, it proves impossible for the Government to introduce their own legislation in the coming weeks, will they consider the vehicle provided by the Adoption Bill promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman)? The Bill has its First Reading today, has had the support of hon. Members from all parties and could thereby contain the proposals of Government and Opposition.
    The Prime Minister: I shall certainly consider the right hon. Gentleman's suggestions about that Bill. I am told, however, that some of the measures that it contains do not require legislation, so we can press ahead with them in any event if they are the right measures to introduce.
    It is important to realise that adoption concerns many families in this country very deeply. There is now general acceptance that we must clear away some of the bureaucratic obstacles and that we can do that while ensuring that proper standards and procedures are in place so that deeply regrettable events such as the trading of children, to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, are prohibited.
    Mr. Gwyn Prosser: Does my right hon. Friend agree that we owe a deep debt of gratitude to the miners? Is he aware of the huge backlog of claims in the East Kent coalfield, which is often forgotten? Has he heard the sad stories of my constituents Jon Phelan, Norman Woodcock and Arthur Bailes, who are very old and sick and feel let down by the current slow and complex process of claims assessment?
    The Prime Minister: I am sure that my hon. Friend speaks for many people—not only his constituents, but people in every part of the country that has had a large mining presence, my constituency included. As he knows, the difficulty is that this is the largest personal litigation in United Kingdom history. Some 130,000 claims for respiratory disease alone have to be processed, and each one of them must be processed individually. We are trying to speed up the rate of paying out. In December, for example, £22 million of compensation was paid out. The fast-track procedures that we announced last September have resulted in the paying out of a further £74 million. It is only because of the Government that the money is being paid out at all. However, we accept our obligation to ensure that the claims are processed more quickly and
    338
    are looking urgently at doing that. It is important for people to realise that the delays are occurring because each claim must, by law, be processed individually.
    Mr. Charles Kennedy: I am sure that the whole House will acknowledge that although people in rural communities may, like all the political parties, have different views about hunting, one thing on which they all agree is that they can see post offices closing, public transport disappearing and farm incomes plummeting. Will the Prime Minister acknowledge that his Administration has failed rural Britain?
    The Prime Minister: No, I do not acknowledge that. Of course there is a real problem with rural post offices, which is why we are committed to putting in the investment and to working with them to ensure that they have a future. As for investment in public services, it is this Government who are putting in the investment: we are putting far more investment into rural areas than the right hon. Gentleman asked us to before the general election.
    Mr. Kennedy: But only last year, the Government published an action plan for farming and followed it up with a rural White Paper, yet the post offices are disappearing, public transport is receding and farm incomes are falling. Will the Prime Minister acknowledge that, having promised rural Britain, like everyone else in the country, that things can only get better, the truth for rural Britain is that things have only got worse?
    The Prime Minister: Rural post offices have been closing for many years. There are reasons for that, which we are addressing. The matter can be addressed only in the way that we are doing it, by giving the rural post offices options for the future. That is precisely what we are doing. As for public service investment, if the right hon. Gentleman looks at primary school results, investment in primary schools in rural areas, the investment now going into the national health service and the money made available specifically for police officers in rural areas, he will see that all those elements are rising and all of that investment is going in.
    Whatever the Liberal Democrats say, they set out at the general election their plans and what they thought they could do if they were ever elected as a Government, but we have exceeded those proposals many times over. Of course there is still a lot to do, but it is simply incorrect to say that no investment is going into rural areas.
    Mrs. Linda Gilroy: Does the Prime Minister share my anger about the whopping 43p in every hard-earned taxpayer's pound that went on the cost of rising debt and unemployment in 1997? Will he remind the House of the Government's actions to cut that waste and the way in which the 26p freed by them is being put to much better use?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right: 43p in every pound went on social security payments or debt repayments, and that sum is now down to 17p as a result of Government measures. Today, we have the lowest inflation in Europe, our interest rates are half what they were in the Conservative years, and we have cut the

    339
    national debt that the previous Government incurred. It will be interesting to note how many questions the Opposition ask on the economy in the rest of Question Time today.
    Mr. Matthew Taylor: Over the past few months, the firemen and women in this country have risked their lives helping victims of flooding, not least in Cornwall in the past 24 hours. I am sure that the Prime Minister will want to join me in congratulating them on that work. Is he aware that the current funding formula for the fire service does not allow for such rescue work and that, consequently, many fire officers have had to tackle flooding problems without appropriate equipment, uniforms and clothing for those wet conditions? Is not it time that the Government changed the way in which the fire service is funded so that those fire officers can have the equipment that they need as they risk their lives on behalf of people in the circumstances that I described?
    The Prime Minister: I certainly join the hon. Gentleman in congratulating firefighters and other emergency service workers on their excellent work in the past few weeks. We are reviewing the operation of the funding and the attached funding formula. However, let me make two other points.
    First, we have made substantial additional sums available for flood relief in areas that have been affected by flooding. Secondly, I say to the hon. Gentleman, who is a Liberal Democrat, that there is a limit to the amount that any Government can spend on public services. I know that he and his colleagues do not accept that, but that is the reality.

    Ilois People
    Mr. Tam Dalyell: If he will discuss with the President of the Seychelles the return of Ibis people to the land of their ancestral graves, when he next visits the Seychelles.
    The Prime Minister: I know that my hon. Friend has a long association with this subject that goes back some 30 years. Indeed, he recently secured a debate on it in Westminster Hall. Unfortunately, I have no immediate plans to visit the Seychelles. However, as he knows, a team of independent consultants is currently assessing the feasibility of resettlement of the outer islands of the territory. We await its conclusions.
    Mr. Dalyell: Against the background of that hour-long Westminster Hall Adjournment debate, how about establishing an Anglo-American tribunal on compensation?
    The Prime Minister: This is where the briefing runs out, so I shall have to get back to my hon. Friend on that. However, as he knows—probably better than I do—a High Court case is currently examining whether resettlement is possible. Two ex gratia payments of some £4 million were made to specific people for resettlement, most recently in 1982.
    We are currently conducting feasibility studies on the possibility of resettlement. I am not aware of the Americans doing that, but I shall find out as a result of my hon. Friend's question and write to him.

    Ministerial Code of Conduct
    Mr. Andrew Robathan: What assessment he has made of the effectiveness of paragraph 113 of the ministerial code of conduct.
    The Prime Minister: My position on the ministerial code was set out in the Government's response to the Neill committee's sixth report, which was published in July.
    Mr. Robathan: The Prime Minister knows that his ministerial code is his responsibility alone. It has nothing to do with the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges. Does he recall writing the foreword to the code? It stated:
    I will expect all Ministers to work within the letter and spirit of the code.
    Paragraph 113, which deals specifically with trade unions, states:
    Care must be taken to avoid any actual or perceived conflict of interest …
    It continues:
    Ministers should receive no remuneration from a union.
    How does the Prime Minister reconcile that with the flat that the Deputy Prime Minister, who is responsible for transport, rents from the transport union for some £10,000 a year less than the market rate? That is a substantial benefit in kind. When will he enforce his own rules?
    The Prime Minister: I do enforce our rules—and it is relevant to note that the Standards and Privileges Committee dismissed the complaint, and found it to have absolutely no substance.
    As for the hon. Gentleman's unpleasant and nasty obsession with this issue, it reflects much worse on him than on the Deputy Prime Minister, whose integrity I prefer to his any day of the week.

    Engagements
    Siobhain McDonagh: Will the Prime Minister join me in congratulating schools in the London borough of Merton, one of the five most improved boroughs in the country in terms of school standards? Will he congratulate in particular the children and staff of Malmesbury primary school, who have achieved an improvement of 140 per cent. in the past five years? Does he agree, however, that there is still much to be done, especially in high schools? Will he give the House a commitment that a future Labour Government will concentrate on improving standards in such schools?
    The Prime Minister: Funding has increased by some £450 per pupil over the past few years. In the last three years of Conservative Government, it fell by about £60.
    We are now committed to providing, over the next few years, the largest investment that the country has ever seen. We know from the commitments given by the shadow Chancellor that the Conservative party is intent on cutting that investment in Britain's schools, and also on getting rid of the new deal for investment in our

    341
    schools. There will be a simple choice before the people: investment under this Government, or cuts under that party.
    Mr. William Hague: When the Foreign Office Minister responsible for Government policy on missile proliferation says that he is opposed to the development of a ballistic missile defence system, is he speaking for the Government?
    The Prime Minister: We have not said that we are opposed; what we have said—[Interruption.] No. We have said that until a proper proposal is before us, we will not make a detailed comment on it. That is entirely sensible, which is why the right hon. Gentleman's intervention last week was so misjudged.
    Mr. Hague: The Minister responsible is the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), who said:
    I don't like the idea of this programme, limited or unlimited.
    The programme to which he referred was the ballistic missile defence system.
    The Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament—I do not know whether the Prime Minister remembers CND, but it certainly remembers him—said:
    we are currently campaigning against American plans to set up a missile defence system.
    The Minister is a fully paid-up member of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament.
    Will the Prime Minister make it clear that, despite being responsible for this area of policy, the Minister is not speaking for the Government?
    The Prime Minister: I have made the Government's position absolutely clear is. When there is a proposal from the United States for national missile defence, we will make our declaration on that proposal. We have not yet received a proposal. It is an extremely sensitive issue, for reasons that are entirely obvious—which is why the right hon. Gentleman's blundering about does no good either to us or to our relationship with the United States.
    Mr. Hague: Is it clear, then, that if the Minister says that the Government are not in favour of the idea, he is not speaking for the Government?
    The Prime Minister: I have already said that we have not actually received a proposal on national missile defence. I personally said earlier, in exchanges not with the right hon. Gentleman but with others, that we entirely understand America's reasons for wishing to develop the system; but until there is a proposal, it would be rather foolish to say how we react to that proposal. All that the right hon. Gentleman is trying to do—joined by others on the Opposition Front Bench—is create mischief between ourselves and the United States. That is foolish and wrong, but fortunately it will get him nowhere.
    Mr. Hague: For all that wriggling, it is still not clear whether the Minister speaks for the Government in the world, or for CND within the Government. The Prime Minister has not been able to clear that up. Will he accept
    342
    that if he makes the country's position clear now, we shall be able to reassure our ally, shape the system that will eventually be created, and take a lead in NATO?
    It is not just a case of waiting to accede to requests; it is a case of making a positive statement of intent. Should not the Government now stop dithering and use this opportunity to make a clear statement that Britain will support the new Administration in the United States?
    The Prime Minister: In other words, before we receive the request, we should respond to it. That is the right hon. Gentleman's latest foreign policy announcement. It is so ridiculous. It would be a good idea if he paid some attention to the words of President-elect Bush just a few days ago on 8 January. He said that it was an issue that had to be handled with very great care and he was listening to what people were saying. That is an intelligent response from our ally, the United States of America. That is precisely what we will do. When there is a detailed request, we will make our response to it. That is the intelligent way to proceed. An unintelligent and foolish way to proceed is to say that, whatever request may be made to us, we will accede to it before it is even made.
    Hon. Members: More.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I call David Lammy.
    Mr. David Lammy: I am sure that my right hon. Friend shares my sorrow and would wish to send his condolences to the parents of Anna Climbie. May I seek his assurance that he will scrutinise and implement the recommendations of Lord Laming's inquiry in due course?
    The Prime Minister: I think that the whole House knows that it was a needless and dreadful tragedy in wholly unimaginable circumstances. This poor little girl was murdered by people who were supposed to be caring for her, but the fact is that she was let down by the system as well. The statutory inquiry that we have announced under the chairmanship of Lord Laming will get to the bottom of what went wrong. It will make a full report to us, which we will scrutinise very carefully. I am sure that we will act on the recommendations that the inquiry makes to us. It is a terrible case. Again, I am afraid, we have to try to learn the lessons of how the system let down that poor innocent and helpless child.
    Mr. John Randall: Is the Prime Minister aware that Hillingdon community health council and Harrow CHC have both formally objected to the proposed closure of the world famous Harefield hospital? Is that example of independent thinking why he wants to abolish CHCs?
    The Prime Minister: No, it is not. It is correct that the health authority made some proposals on the future of Harefield hospital at the end of last year. Those proposals may be subject to referral to Ministers for a decision. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that any final decision will be made in the interests of the local community.
    Mr. Neil Turner: I welcome the Government's commitment to neighbourhood renewal. My local authority is in discussions with a private

    343
    developer that will lever in some £400 million of development on an integrated transport system. However, that depends on a link road to the M6, which borders the Pemberton area in my constituency, the 172nd most deprived area in the country. Will he do all he can to ensure that the Government office for the north-west, the Highways Agency and other Departments and agencies work with the local authority and the private developer to lever in the money and ensure that the scheme is an important part of redeveloping the neighbourhood and former coalfield community?
    The Prime Minister: I can give my hon. Friend that undertaking. We will work with the Highways Agency, the north-west regional office and others to do our very best to get that private investment. It is all part of a series of proposals that will regenerate our inner cities. Again, it is an example of money that will be invested in some of the most deprived communities in the country. Again, it is an example of investment that we are putting in that would be taken out by the Conservative party.
    Mr. Lembit Öpik: People laughed when I first raised the potential devastation that would result from tai impact between an asteroid and the earth. There is no middle way with asteroids. In the light of that and of the Government's near-earth object task force report, which confirmed every claim that I had made about the dangers and made 14 recommendations for action, will the Prime Minister consider raising the matter, with the prospect for international co-operation, at the next G8 summit?
    The Prime Minister: The report of the task force on near-earth objects and asteroids was published last September, and the Government and considering it. We shall announce our response to it shortly. The Department of Trade and Industry has established a small implementation team to oversee the preparation of that response, which I am sure will be eagerly awaited on both sides of the House.
    Mr. Ronnie Campbell: May I take my right hon. Friend back to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Prosser) on miners' compensation? I heard what my right hon. Friend said about the legal side of the matter, and we know that the process is rather cumbersome and long. Unfortunately, however, we have many old miners who were assessed at least two years ago but are dying before they see a penny of compensation. Will he intervene and see if we can create a fast-track process to get that money to those old miners and their widows?
    The Prime Minister: The frustration that my hon. Friend expresses is absolutely right, and I share it. Indeed, some people in my own constituency are in exactly the same position. That is why, from last September, we introduced, as far as we were able, a fast-track scheme. The problem is that it is impossible—I assure him that I have looked into it myself on many occasions—entirely to short-circuit the point that I made earlier, which is that there has to be an individual assessment in each individual claim. There are literally more than 130,000 claims simply for respiratory illness. Some of those claims will
    344
    be entirely valid, but some may not be. As we are talking about paying out very large sums of taxpayers' money, it is essential that we look into the matter in detail.
    I know how frustrating the process is, and we are trying to speed it up as much as possible, but there is a limit legally to what we can do. I hope that my hon. Friend is able to explain that to his constituents. I understand entirely his frustration, and I share it.
    Sir Patrick Cormack: If the Prime Minister is in favour of completing the various tasks that he set himself for this Parliament, why is he not in favour of fixed-term Parliaments?
    The Prime Minister: Because I share the view of many of those who have occupied this position before me that that is not the right thing.
    Mr. Roger Casale: May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to plans for a new community hospital on the site of the Nelson hospital in my constituency, which will provide a focus for primary and secondary care and for the integration of health and social services? Such innovative projects are possible only because of the money that the Labour Government are putting into the health service. Would not hopes for the realisation of such important projects be dashed if the Conservatives were ever again to take power?
    Mr. Andrew MacKay: You will be out.
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right in the sense both that we are putting extra investment into the health service and that Conservative Members have refused to commit themselves to matching our additional funding for social services, which are a vital part of achieving improvements in the national health service. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) keeps shouting across to my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Mr. Casale) that he will be out at the next general election, but we will just see. [Interruption.]
    Let us just see. When people are given the choice, let us see whether they want increased stability under Labour, or boom and bust under the Conservatives; jobs under Labour, or unemployment under them; investment in our public services, or cuts under them. I am still waiting for an answer to my question to them on the economy.
    Mr. Nicholas Soames: Will the Prime Minister clarify why he misled the audience on "Question Time" last year, when he told them that he had voted for the Foster Bill, which he had not, and that it had been lost in the House of Lords, which it had not? In view of his lamentable attendance record in the House, will he tell us how he will vote today, and why?
    The Prime Minister: I have made it quite clear, and my position has not changed. I am opposed to fox hunting for the reasons that I have given on many occasions. As for what I said on "Question Time", we shall wait and see

    345
    exactly what happens in the other place. However, I think that it is absolutely certain that the will of this place will be made very clear.
    Mr. Bob Russell: Does the Prime Minister agree that in this, the Year of the Volunteer, the Government should follow the excellent example of the Scottish Parliament and remove the £10 fee that volunteers for voluntary youth organisations must pay?
    The Prime Minister: I suppose that that is another spending commitment on behalf of the Liberal Democrats. As a matter of fact, the Government are doing a lot for volunteering, as the hon. Gentleman knows. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced a package of measures on volunteering last week that was widely welcomed. We want to encourage people to volunteer, but Liberal Democrat Members must recognise that there comes a point when there is a limit to how much taxpayers' money one can spend. In particular, instead of telling us how much more public money they are going to spend, they must tell us how they are going to fund that public money.
    Mr. Jim Fitzpatrick: The editor of the Newham Recorder, Mr. Tom Duncan, is much respected in the east end of London. In this morning's edition of the newspaper, he welcomed the launch earlier this week of the Government's neighbourhood renewal project. However, he criticised the Conservative party for its consistent failure to give leadership since the east end began to be regenerated. Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that the resources allocated to the project will be adequate to see the job finished this time?
    The Prime Minister: The job will, of course, take a very long time indeed, but the resources will be put into it. Those resources are going into inner cities up and down the country for the simple reason that this Government and this political party believe in prosperity being spread to every part of our country. We also believe that no one should be shut out and excluded from our society. [Interruption.] Conservative Members can shout as much as they like, but they wrote off our country's inner cities, just as they wrote off the mining communities. This Government are bringing prosperity to those areas, so that every one of our citizens gets the chance to succeed.

Bills Presented
  OUTWORKING
  Mr. Richard Burden, supported by Mr. Fabian Hamilton, Angela Smith, Mr. Peter Bottomley, Ms Oona King, Mr. Paul Tyler, Mr. Nigel Griffiths, Judy Mallaber, Mr. David Amess, Mrs. Linda Gilroy, Mr. Dafydd Wigley and Mr. David Kidney presented a Bill to control the, seeking or receipt of payments for the provision of work or of information about work opportunities: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 2 February, and to be printed [Bill 11].
  ROAD TRANSPORT
  Mr. James Gray, supported by Mr. Andrew F. Bennett, Mr. Brian H. Donohoe, Mrs. Eleanor Laing, Mr. Tim Loughton, Mr. John MacGregor, Mr. Bill Olner, Mr. Martin Salter, the Rev. Martin Smyth and Sir George Young presented a Bill to require local authorities to take measures to safeguard motorists and pedestrians from the effects of snow and ice; to require local authorities to assess the appropriateness of speed limits; to simplify the procedure for making speed limits; to ban the use of hand-held telephones by drivers of motor vehicles; to amend the law with respect to the wearing of seat belts; and to extend the area within which mandatory travel concessions outside Greater London apply: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 9 February, and to be printed [Bill 12].
  HIGH HEDGES
  Mr. John M. Taylor, supported by Mr. Andrew Rowe, Mr. Jim Cunningham, Mr. Don Foster, Mr. Dafydd Wigley, Mr. William Ross, Sir David Madel, Sir Sydney Chapman, Mr. Lindsay Hoyle, Mr. Simon Burns, Mr. Andrew Hunter and Mr. Keith Simpson presented a Bill to make provision for dealing with complaints about high hedges; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 9 March, and to be printed [Bill 13].
  CHRISTMAS DAY (TRADING)
  Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody, supported by Mr. Derek Foster, Mrs. Llin Golding, Dr. Evan Harris, Mrs. Joan Humble and Helen Jones presented a Bill to prohibit trading on Christmas Day in certain cases; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 16 March, and to be printed [Bill 14].
  NATIONAL LOTTERY (AMENDMENT)
  Dr. Ian Gibson, supported by Dr. Desmond Turner, Mr. Anthony D. Wright, Dr. George Turner, Mr. Bob Blizzard, Mr. David Prior, Mr. Keith Simpson, Mrs. Gillian Shephard and Mr. John MacGregor presented a Bill to allow the National Lottery Charities Board to make grants to endowment trusts as part of the endowment of such charitable organisations: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 23 March, and to be printed [Bill 15].

  ADOPTION
  Mrs. Caroline Spelman, supported by Mr. Julian Brazier, Mrs. Llin Golding, Mr. Frank Field, Mr. David Davis, Mr. Mark Oaten, Mr. Joe Ashton, Mr. Ian Bruce,
  348
  Dr. Peter Brand, Mr. Michael Fabricant, Sir Nicholas Lyell and Mrs. Virginia Bottomley presented a Bill to amend the law on adoption: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 30 March, and to be printed [Bill 16].

  TRANSPLANT OF HUMAN ORGANS
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke, supported by Mr. John Butterfill presented a Bill to amend the law on the transplant of human tissue; and for related purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 16 March, and to be printed [Bill 17].
  PRIVATE DENTAL PRACTITIONERS
  Ann Clwyd, supported by Angela Smith, Ms Linda Perham, Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody, Mr. Brian Sedgemore, Mr. Gordon Prentice, Mr. Paul Flynn, Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith, Dr. Peter Brand, Mr. Paul Burstow, Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours and Ms Julie Morgan presented a Bill to amend the law on the registration and regulation of private dental practitioners; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 16 March, and to be printed [Bill 18].
  RAILWAYS
  Mr. Eric Martlew, supported by Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody, Mr. Derek Foster, Mr. David Hinchliffe, Mr. Gerry Steinberg, Mr. Gordon Prentice, Mr. Brian Sedgemore, Mr. Michael Clapham, Mrs. Ann Cryer, Mr. Clive Efford, Mr. Michael Connarty and Mr. Ian Cawsey presented a Bill to require the Secretary of State to inquire into and make a report to Parliament on the future ownership, control and management of railway infrastructure: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 23 March, and to be printed [Bill 19].
  COPYRIGHT, ETC. AND TRADE MARKS (OFFENCES AND ENFORCEMENT)
  Mr. Andrew Miller, supported by Mr. Andrew Dismore, Mr. Phil Woolas, Mrs. Linda Gilroy, Mr. Tom Pendry, Mr. Stephen Pound, Mr. Eric Martlew, Gillian Merron, Mr. Phil Hope, Mr. Ivor Caplin and Maria Eagle presented a Bill to amend the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 in respect of criminal offences, search warrants, powers of seizure and orders for forfeiture; to amend the Trade Marks Act 1994 in respect of search warrants and powers of seizure; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 9 March, and to be printed [Bill 20].
  VACCINATION OF CHILDREN (PARENTAL CHOICE)
  Miss Julie Kirkbride, supported by Mr. David Davis, Mr. Graham Brady, Dr. Ian Gibson, Mr. Nick Harvey, Mr. Dafydd Wigley and Mr. William Thompson presented a Bill to allow parents to choose to have their child vaccinated separately against measles, mumps and rubella; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 9 February, and to be printed [Bill 21].

  MISUSE OF DRUGS (AMENDMENT)
  Mr. Paul Flynn, supported by Mr. Peter Bradley and Mr. Austin Mitchell presented a Bill to allow the

  349
  production, supply, possession and use of cannabis and cannabis resin for medicinal purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 2 February, and to be printed [Bill 22].

  SECRET SOCIETIES (REGISTRATION OF MEMBERSHIP)
  Mr. Charles Wardle, supported by Mr. Norman Baker, Sir Richard Body, Mr. Andrew Mackinlay. Mr. Brian Sedgemore and Mr. Richard Shepherd presented a Bill to require that a person elected to public office shall register with the public body to which he has been elected his membership of any secret society: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 30 March, and to be printed [Bill 23].
  HUMAN FERTILISATION AND EMBRYOLOGY (DECEASED FATHERS)
  Mr. Tony Clarke, supported by Mr. Joe Ashton, Mr. Peter Bottomley, Dr. Evan Harris, Mr. Ivan Henderson, Mr. Stephen Hepburn, Ms Sally Keeble, Mr. Steve McCabe, Mr. Stephen Pound, Mr. Phil Sawford, Ms Debra Shipley and Mr. Anthony D. Wright, presented a Bill to make provision about the circumstances in which, and the extent to which, a man is to be treated in law as the father of a child where the child has resulted from certain fertility treatment undertaken after the man's death; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 23 March, and to be printed [Bill 24].
  ORGANIC FOOD AND FARMING TARGETS
  Mr. Simon Thomas, supported by Mr. Paul Tyler, Joan Ruddock, Mr. Elfyn Llwyd, Mr. Peter Bottomley, Mr. Tony Benn, Mr. David Drew, Mr. Richard Livsey, Ms Julia Drown, Mr. Alan Simpson, Mr. Martin Caton and Mr. Colin Breed presented a Bill to make provision regarding the setting and achievement of targets for organic farming and food consumption; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 9 February, and to be printed [Bill 25].

  CHILDREN'S RIGHTS COMMISSIONER
  Mr. Hilton Dawson, supported by Mr. David Hinchliffe, Ms Julie Morgan, Mrs. Llin Golding, Mr. Mark Todd, Mr. David Kidney, Mr. Jonathan Shaw, Mr. Win Griffiths, Ms Debra Shipley, Mr. Vernon Coaker, Mr. George Mudie and Mr. David Drew, presented a Bill to provide for the establishment of a children' s rights commissioner to promote the rights and
  350
  interests of children in England; to make provision for the powers and duties of the commissioner; and for related purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 6 April, and to be printed [Bill 26].

  EMPLOYEE CONSULTATION RIGHTS
  Mr. Kelvin Hopkins, supported by Mr. Harold Best, Mr. David Chaytor, Mr. Michael Clapham, Mr. Tony Clarke, Mrs. Ann Cryer, Mr. Lindsay Hoyle, Dr. Lynne Jones, Mr. Bob Laxton, Mr. Terry Lewis, Mr. Andrew Love and Mr. Gordon Prentice, presented a Bill to require employers with more than fifty employees to consult workforce representatives on large business issues which directly affect employees; to establish a forum in which to consult about those issues; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 6 April, and to be printed [Bill 27].
  PENSION ANNUITIES (AMENDMENT)
  Mr. John Butterfill, supported by Mr. Frank Field, Mr. Kenneth Clarke, Mr. Malcolm Bruce, Mr. Peter Lilley, Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody, Mr. Michael Howard, Mr. John Burnett and Mr. Nick St. Aubyn, presented a Bill to amend the law relating to the purchase of annuities in respect of private and personal pensions and defined contribution pension schemes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 9 March, and to be printed [Bill 28].
  CROWN EMPLOYMENT (NATIONALITY)
  Mr. Roger Casale, supported by Mr. Bill Rammell, Fiona Mactaggart, Mr. Piara S. Khabra, Ms Ruth Kelly, Mr. Edward Davey, Ms Linda Perham, Miss Anne Begg, Dr. Rudi Vis, Mr. Paul Stinchcombe, Mr. Hilary Benn and Ms Tess Kingham, presented a Bill to make provision for and in connection with the removal of general restrictions as to nationality which apply to civil employment under the Crown; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 2 February, and to be printed [Bill 29].
  PATIENT CONSENT FORM
  Mrs. Marion Roe, supported by Mr. David Amess, Mr. Graham Brady Mr. Simon Burns and Mr. Jonathan Sayeed, presented a Bill to require health service providers to provide patients with a standard consent form; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 30 March, and to be printed [Bill 30].

Points of Order
3.36 pm
Mr. Jim Cunningham: I wonder whether you, Mr. Speaker, could comment on a situation in which a constituent who was employed by a public body wrote a letter to his Member of Parliament, detailing the way in which he had been treated by that public body and issues that could affect the service delivery of the public body. Surely it is wrong to use the detail of a constituent's letter for the purposes of proposed disciplinary action against him. Surely it undermines the confidence of constituents in their Member of Parliament's ability to represent their interests without fear or favour.
Mr. Geoffrey Robinson: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. As my hon. Friend has explained, a distinguished surgeon in the Coventry area who is in dispute with the local health trust wrote to my hon. Friend, copying the letter to me, stating his reasons for disagreement with the health trust, in particular his natural temporary loss of confidence in the management, with whom he was in dispute. It seems that the trust has used that letter, quoting from it, in its assessment of the situation, to adduce from it why the surgeon should not be reinstated in his position. That surely cannot be acceptable to any Member of this House. We should receive letters from our constituents in confidence. We should be able to seek information and views on them and represent the interests of constituents without the correspondence, which surely is confidential, being used against their professional interests, even to the point of denying their ability to earn their living. We would be grateful for your advice, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Coventry, South (Mr. Cunningham) for letting me have notice of his point of order. It does not appear to me that the House's privileges have been infringed by what we have heard. It would not be appropriate for me to make any comment on the detailed circumstances of the case. Nevertheless, I have two general observations to make arising from it. First, I would deplore any activity, particularly if a public body were to be involved, that was intended to deter a constituent from contacting his or her Member of Parliament. Secondly, Members should always bear it in mind that the House's privileges do not, as a rule, protect constituents who write to us seeking advice and help.
Mr. Nicholas Soames: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask you, as the guardian of the rights of Back Benchers, which are increasingly few, to have a word with the Prime Minister about the way in which questions are answered? I asked the right hon. Gentleman a question today of fundamental importance about when he, to put it frankly, was less than honest in a television—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. No hon. Member is less than honest. Every hon. Member is honest. The hon. Gentleman must not say that a Member has been less than honest in the House.
Mr. Soames: The Prime Minister was wrong, and he misled a very large television audience—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not saying that the Prime Minister deliberately misled anyone in the House.
Mr. Soames: This happened on television, not in the House. The Prime Minister may accidentally have misled, but he misled.
Mr. Speaker: Order. That is unsatisfactory. No hon. Member would be misleading—perhaps misinformed, but not misleading.
Mr. Soames: That is certainly an original ruling, Mr. Speaker. [Interruption.] I intend no disrespect to the Chair. I am trying to get an answer from the Prime Minister. He said on television that he had voted in favour of the Wild Mammals (Hunting with Dogs) Bill, when, as usual, he did not even bother to vote. He also said on that television programme that the Bill was lost because the House of Lords threw it out. It never even reached the House of Lords. I must ask you what opportunity exists for hon. Members to receive honourable answers to important questions, when we are about to debate a matter that touches on the fundamental civil liberties of hundreds of thousands of ordinary people. You are the guardian of our rights.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is quite right. I am the guardian of the rules, and the rules of the House do not allow me to put words into a Minister's mouth. I am not responsible for the answers that the Prime Minister or any other hon. Member gives in the House. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman must seek to table questions or get round the Order Paper in whatever way he can.
Mr. John Hayes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek your guidance. You may be aware of the continuing fiasco of the Government's incompetent handling of teachers' performance-related pay. Last night, Madam Deputy Speaker properly deferred debate because, as a result of the Government's so-called modernisation, there was not sufficient time to consider the matter. Have you been informed by the Government when they intend to bring the matter back? The House deserves the right to debate this fully.
Mr. Speaker: The Government have not informed me, but I am sure that I will know on the day when the business comes before the House.
Dr. Howard Stoate: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In today's The Guardian, the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) is quoted as saying of the Hunting Bill:
It is absolutely vital that the legislation is as flawed and sloppy as possible.
Conservative Members are well known for producing flawed and sloppy legislation; they had 18 years in which to do so. I would like your guidance on whether a deliberate attempt to undermine the Bill reduces the authority of the House and brings it into disrepute.
Mr. Speaker: That is absolutely nothing to do with the Chair.
Mr. Tony Baldry: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Many hon. Members wish to speak in today's debate. Are you minded to impose a 10-minute limit on speeches to ensure that the maximum number of right hon. and hon. Members have the opportunity to contribute?
Mr. Speaker: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Bill will be dealt with in a Committee of the whole House. Standing Orders do not allow the Chairman of the Committee to impose a time limit.
Mr. Roger Gale: Further to the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames), Mr. Speaker. You have ruled, in accordance with custom and practice, that hon. Members do not lie or mislead the House. We all accept that, but the quid pro quo must be that where it is shown that a right hon. or hon. Member has inadvertently made a mistake, he should be asked to withdraw his statement. The Prime Minister's statement is on the record in Hansard of July last year. Has he offered to withdraw it?
Mr. Speaker: Order. Once again, I say to the hon. Member that that is a matter for the Member concerned.
Mr. Andrew Robathan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have listened to your advice, and I shall table questions relating to the answer that I received from the Prime Minister today on a matter that concerns many hon. Members on both sides of the House. If the answer that I receive to my written question does not tally with the answer that he gave me today, what am I to do?
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman asks what he is to do. He will have to wait to see whether that happens.

Hunting Bill
Ordered,
That in the Order of 20th December 2000 (Hunting Bill: Programme) the following be substituted for paragraph 4—
4. The following shall not apply in respect of proceedings in Committee of the whole House—

(a) Sessional Order B (Programming Committees) made by the House on 7th November 2000, and

(b) Sessional Order D(5) (Single question on successive provisions of the Bill) made by the House on that day.—[Mr. Sutcliffe.]

Orders of the Day

  Hunting Bill
  Considered in Committee.
  [SIR ALAN HASELHURST in the Chair]

  Hunting Bill
    Clause 1

      HUNTING WITH DOGS: PROHIBITION
      3.46 pm
      Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
      The Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this it will be convenient to consider the following:
      Clauses 2 to 4 stand part.
      Government new clause 1—Commencement (No. 2)—and amendments (a) and (b) thereto.
      Government new clause 2—Commencement (No. 3)—and amendments (a) to (c) thereto.
      Government new clause 3—Commencement (No. 4)—and amendments (a) and (b) thereto.
      There will thus be a joint debate on the first four clauses of the Bill together with the three new clauses and associated selected amendments. The Committee will have the opportunity at 10 o'clock to vote successively on each of the three options contained in clauses 1 to 3, before dealing with the consequential matters relating to the clauses. I appeal to members of the Committee to restrain themselves in the length of their speeches, if they catch my eye. The point has been made that a great many people have a deep interest in the matter. To allow as many as possible to contribute, and to cover all shades of opinion, I hope that all hon. Members will adopt brevity as their guide.
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Mike O'Brien): Clause 1 incorporates schedule 1. I hasten to add that, in speaking to the clause, I am not in any sense advocating a vote for it; I am merely recognising, as a Minister of the House, that the debate has to start somewhere. In due course, I shall move the further clauses that deal with the schedules.
      It might be helpful if I say a few words about the procedural issues. I shall not advise hon. Members on how they should vote, as the Government are neutral on the question of which option to adopt. My personal views were put on record on Second Reading. I shall make a couple of procedural points so that hon. Members know how we shall proceed. I know that you, Sir Alan, have already said how you intend to deal with our proceedings.
      We are currently dealing with clause 1, which introduces schedule 1 and which has been proposed by the Countryside Alliance. Similarly, clause 2 introduces schedule 2, which has been proposed by the Middle Way Group, and clause 3 introduces schedule 3, which has been proposed by Deadline 2000. When we vote, hon. Members will not be surprised to learn that they ought to vote for the schedule that they support. In addition—

      355
      this may seem a little basic, but I say it for clarity's sake—hon. Members should vote against any clause that introduces schedules that they oppose. That matters, because the fact that one of the options receives a majority will not necessarily cause the other two to fall. The procedure assumes that hon. Members will seek to have one schedule in the Bill by the end of the day. That will be the case only if hon. Members decide to allow the other two schedules to fall.
      Mr. Andrew Robathan: As regards the Government's neutrality—I am sure that many of us heard the Minister on Radio 4 this morning—the Deputy Prime Minister has said:
      Every time I see the Countryside Alliance's contorted faces, I redouble my determination to abolish foxhunting£
      The Prime Minister has said that he would vote to abolish foxhunting. Does not that slightly compromise the Government's neutrality?
      Mr. O'Brien: It does not, and I shall tell the hon. Gentleman why. The same applied when the House considered the Sunday Trading Act 1994, which was introduced by the previous Government. Distinguished Conservative Front Benchers, including the shadow Home Secretary, held their own views. Unfortunately, I suspect that she may not be allowed to speak in this debate—she is on record as saying that her view is not shared by many others in her party.
      Each individual Member of the House is allowed a free vote. All parties have agreed that whips will not apply. It is for each constituency MP to determine how to represent his or her constituents. Thus my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister have expressed their views, and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has expressed his view. Likewise, the Leader of the Opposition has a view that is not shared, as we know, by the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe). Therefore, each Member will express a view, which is how it should be on a matter of conscience.
      Mr. James Paice: The Minister has described the procedure. Did I understand him to suggest that, even if a majority is in favour after one of the first two votes, that will tot necessarily be the final result? If that is what he meant, how will we reach a final outcome, as two Divisions could result in majorities in favour?
      Mr. O'Brien: Indeed. It is feasible, though very unlikely, that the Committee could decide to include all three schedules. Perchance, should every Member vote for all three schedules, the Bill would contain three contradictory provisions, but that is so unlikely that it will not happen. That brings me neatly to my next point, which deals with the amendments standing in the name of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.
      Mr. Peter Luff: Will the Minister give way?
      Mr. O'Brien: On a matter of procedure, yes.
      Mr. Luff: Will the Minister confirm what he said in the debate on Second Reading? Will Members who vote
      356
      for schedule 1 only to be defeated be free to vote for schedule 2? Will Members be able to vote for two different propositions?
      Mr. O'Brien: Yes. Any permutation is possible. Hon. Members who vote for schedule 1 would be free to vote for schedule 2 should schedule 1 fall. Were they so disposed, they would be free to vote for schedule 3 or, indeed, against it. The hon. Gentleman is right—hon. Members must make a decision on each vote.
      My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary explained the purpose behind his amendments when he opened the debate on Second Reading. The rules of the House prevent Bills with internally contradictory provisions from being introduced. That is why the Bill includes a fairly complicated commencement provision providing for the commencement of one schedule and the repeal of the other two. It is our intention that whichever option is chosen by the House should take effect a year after Royal Assent.
      New clauses 1, 2 and 3, which relate to schedules 1, 2 and 3 respectively, have precisely that purpose. New clause 2, which will interest the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) and which relates to schedule 2, is slightly more complicated than the other two. It contains transitional provisions to ensure that the hunting authority would be up and running before it became unlawful to hunt without a licence. There would be a special provision in that regard. Therefore, let me make it clear that, when the relevant time comes, I shall invite the Committee to agree that the present clause 4 should be omitted. At that point, I shall move only the new clause relating to whichever schedule has received a majority vote.
      Let me deal with the amendments standing in the names of the four Plaid Cymru Members. Their consequence would be that the legislation would come into force in Wales only by an order made by the National Assembly for Wales, whichever option were chosen. Under the terms of the devolution settlement endorsed by the people of Wales in a referendum, responsibility for primary legislation rests with the Westminster Parliament. Thus the power to decide whether to ban hunting in Wales is not transferred to the National Assembly for Wales.
      The result of the amendments would be that the decision on the issue of hunting with dogs would, in effect, rest with the Assembly. For example, the Assembly could decide never to make the appropriate commencement order. Such a move would negate the will of this Parliament. Having said that—
      Mr. Douglas Hogg rose—
      Mr. O'Brien: I suspect that a Plaid Cymru Member may want to intervene on this matter, so if the right hon. and learned Gentleman will forgive me, I shall take his intervention later.
      I appreciate that the future of hunting with dogs may have particular implications for Welsh hill farmers. Such concerns should and can be taken into account during the passage of the Bill in this place and can be a subject for debate.
      Mr. Simon Thomas: On the whole, the Minister has given an accurate portrayal of the purpose of

      357
      the amendments. Does he agree, however, that whichever provision is accepted, our amendments would not undermine the present devolution settlement? I draw his attention to the example of performance-related teachers' pay in Wales—enacted by primary legislation in this place, but brought in under a commencement order with a date to be decided by the National Assembly for Wales. That date may have been at no time in the future—exactly like these provisions. Nothing in the amendments undermines the settlement. The amendments would enable the National Assembly to do what it thinks fit for hunting and for agriculture in Wales.
      Mr. O'Brien: The Bill creates criminal offences. Education is, of course, a devolved matter, so there would obviously be a relationship between the Westminster Parliament and the Welsh Assembly in which there was a certain amount of give and take. However, the Bill deals with criminal offences; it is my view that the 40 Members who represent Welsh constituencies are as capable as the Assembly of representing Wales on hunting with dogs.
      In the light of my comments, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will feel able to withdraw the amendments in due course.
      Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman is talking about devolved business. He will be aware that this matter is devolved business for the Scottish Parliament—the Bill does not apply to Scotland. What, then, is the justification for hon. Members who represent Scottish constituencies voting on a matter that has and can have no application for their constituents in Scotland?
      Mr. O'Brien: This Parliament determines whether MPs can vote on a particular matter in this place. This Parliament has determined that MPs representing Scottish constituencies have a constitutional right to vote in the debate on this issue. I do not accept that it is right for the right hon. and learned Gentleman to undermine the legitimacy of the constitutional right of Members to vote in this House. Our view is that Scottish constituency Members will no doubt make their own judgment as to whether they want to vote—that is a decision for them. However, they have a constitutional right to vote and it is certainly wrong for the right hon. and learned Gentleman to try to undermine that. He may well want further to sow seeds of disunity, but the Government believe that Scottish constituency MPs who sit in this place perform functions which, under our constitution, it is right and proper for them to undertake.
      Mr. Simon Hughes rose—
      Mr. James Gray rose—
      Mr. O'Brien: I shall give way once more and then I want to make some progress. I give way to the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes).
      Mr. Hughes: On the Plaid Cymru amendments that would affect the right of the Welsh Assembly to trigger the legislation in Wales, will the Minister confirm that
      358
      there is no Government Whip and that all Labour Back Benchers are free to express their own view? Will he also confirm that it is thus up to the Committee to decide today whether it wants to amend, in respect of hunting, the previous settlement on the powers of the Welsh Assembly?
      Mr. O'Brien: I assure the hon. Gentleman that there is no Government Whip on any of the merits of the issues. It might be helpful to point out that, once we get past the decision on the schedule, I, as the Minister, will have to put the view of this Committee to the Standing Committee. I intend to do that by ensuring that, in Standing Committee, the Government will protect the will of the House—whichever schedule it determines to support. We shall ensure that there is good law in the measure and that it is protected from unnecessary or undue change. Although we shall listen to any technical debates, it is our aim to deliver the will of the House during the Standing Committee proceedings.
      At that stage, we shall have to consider any technical issues about which we receive clear legal advice that they would undermine the quality of good law, and whether there may be an issue in relation to whipping. I am not giving an undertaking throughout the Committee stage, but there is no Government Whip on the merits of the issues before the House today.
      4 pm
      Let me conclude by setting out the Government's broad position. The Government made a manifesto commitment to hold a free vote on hunting with dogs. Unlike previous Conservative Governments, this Government believe in delivering on their promises. It became clear during the debate on the Wild Mammals (Hunting with Dogs) Bill, which was introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster), that, to some extent, the core of factual argument usually present during debates did not exist on the issue of hunting with dogs. We therefore decided to set up the Burns inquiry, which reported in due course.
      It is a great tribute to Lord Burns that the Countryside Alliance, Deadline 2000 and the Middle Way Group were all able to say that they could work with the report. It established a core of facts around which the wider moral and political debate could revolve. I believe, therefore, that this debate should be more factual, less emotional and more coherent, and that we can reach a much fairer decision.
      Sir Nicholas Lyell: Will the Minister give way?
      Mr. O'Brien: No, I have said that I shall not give way. I have been generous in giving way, and I shall not give way any further.
      The Government's aim is to facilitate debate and decision. Some people have suggested that the House should not debate hunting at all. The Government's view is that hunting has been a matter of serious public debate for many years. It has been on the front pages of our newspapers and on our radio and television programmes. Acres of print have been devoted to it. It has also been the subject of controversy in social gatherings.
      Mr. Hogg: On a point of order, Sir Alan. I am sorry to interrupt the Minister, but would it not be right to remind

      359
      hon. Members that the House is in Committee, where it is customary to allow interventions more freely? [Interruption.]
      The Chairman: Order. I think that I can manage to deal with that point of order. Irrespective of whether the House is in Committee, it is entirely a matter of discretion as to whether the hon. Member who has the Floor gives way.
      Mr. O'Brien: I am grateful to you, Sir Alan, for that advice. My concern is that Back Benchers want to speak in the debate and if I were to spend all my time taking interventions—which I could, because some Opposition Members would wish to try to bait the Minister—I could probably continue to speak for the text hour or so. Other hon. Members have the right to have a say. Perhaps if I set out the Government's broad position, we shall find out what others have to say.
      Clearly, there are concerns throughout the country, but it is nonsense to suggest, as was done on Second Reading, that Parliament should not debate the issue or that we should somehow abstain from taking a decision on it. Other issues are important to the Government, and the Government are acting on them. Some of them have required legislation and others are being pursued by the Government as a matter of policy. They will affect rural areas in the same way that foxhunting does, whatever decision we take on it.
      The Government proposed 19 Bills during the Queen's Speech, one of which was on hunting. On crime, we have set out our policies to tackle loutish and rowdy behaviour in rural and urban areas and to give more power to the police. We have set out our policies on how we are increasing police recruits by 9,000 over and above those originally expected. There are other issues. On the national health service and education, we have given the biggest boost to those public services in a generation.
      To those who say that the mere debating of foxhunting sows divisions between the countryside and the town, I say that the Government have set out clear policies in their rural White Paper to help rural areas and those who may be affected by the decisions that we reach today. The previous Government ignored rural areas, which is why more people in rural areas voted Labour at the last general election than voted for the Conservatives. The Conservative party ignored rural areas, but the Government—
      The Chairman: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the Minister, but he is going wide even of the clause stand part debate.
      Mr. O'Brien: You are obviously aware, Sir Alan, that people have legitimately argued that, instead of dealing with hunting, the Government should concentrate on issues that relate to crime, the health service and education. I certainly accept your ruling, and I shall move on. However, I want to make it clear that the Government have set out their policies on such issues, and we are dealing with them as they relate to rural areas, which the previous Government failed to do.
      The issue of sowing divisions between rural and urban areas has been raised by Opposition Back Benchers throughout our debates on hunting. It has been a key
      360
      argument of some people who would no doubt support clause 1. However, the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald is one of the people who best ditched that argument. She said:
      The town verses the country claim is irresponsible for it attempts to divide Britain.
      I give her credit for putting it like that. She set out her arguments at greater length in her article in The Observer some months ago. Her deputies should not undermine her views when they put their case before the House.
      As for the House being precluded from debating hunting, Parliament is the forum for debate on issues of public importance, and hunting with dogs is an issue on which the public have always shown interest, whether they are for or against it. Let that debate begin today. That is the purpose of moving the clause. Let us have a debate that is in the spirit of the Burns report and hear arguments that are based more on fact than on emotion, so that we consider the issues of liberty and the concerns about cruelty.
      Sir Nicholas Lyell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. O'Brien: The House has a great tradition of being a forum for the nation, and hunting with dogs should be debated here.
      Sir Nicholas Lyell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. O'Brien: How could I refuse the right hon. and learned Gentleman, who is so persistent?
      Sir Nicholas Lyell: The Minister just said that the debate should be based on factual argument. Before the rights of hundreds of thousands of citizens are removed and their lawful activities are criminalised, does he agree that that should be objectively justifiable and that questions of cruelty should be a matter not, as he put, for our consciences, but for the courts to decide on objective reasons?
      Mr. O'Brien: If the right hon. and learned Gentleman is saying that Parliament should abrogate its constitutional right to make law, then I disagree with him. That is not what his constituents elected him to do. I was elected to consider the issues that are before the nation, and to debate them in a proper and sensible way. That is why we produced the Burns report; that is why we want the debate to have a factual core; and that is why we have said that the issue should be debated on the ground of rationality rather than of mere emotion.
      The House has a great tradition of being a forum for the nation. Hunting with dogs should be debated here. Whether hunting is to continue or not, it is a decision for Parliament. I look forward to the debate. It will be a focus of great national interest, and it is right that we should have it.
      Mr. David Lidington: I made my position clear during the debate on Second Reading. My intention is to vote in favour of the first option—the self-regulation option. If that is defeated, I shall vote for the option of licensed hunting as second best. I intend to vote against the third option, which proposes a complete ban on hunting with hounds. Conservative Members, like Labour

      361
      Members, have a free vote. As many hon. Members—on both sides of the House and on both sides of the debate—did not have the opportunity to set out their views at similar length on Second Reading, I intend to keep my contribution as brief as possible.
      Those of us who are against a ban have to make up our minds between clauses 1 and 2. My support for the first option partly derives from my instinctive preference—unless there is very persuasive evidence to the contrary—for self-regulation rather than state regulation. I fear, too, that the licensing system that is proposed in schedule 2 would be both cumbersome and bureaucratic.
      Before I go into further detail on my criticisms of that option, it is fair that I should pay tribute to the hard work that has been done by the authors of that option in the Middle Way Group and, in particular, by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) and the hon. Members for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding) and for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik). They have made an honest and determined effort to find middle ground that would enable both sides of this passionate argument to come together on an agreed solution. However, I am not persuaded that the option which they are offering and which would be brought into effect by clause 2 is the most desirable of the options available to the Committee.
      State regulation almost inevitably brings with it a detailed Whitehall-written rule book. It introduces inflexibility in the adaptation of rules to the diversity of individual cases. In this particular case, we would be introducing, under schedule 2, a national system for licensing all hunting with dogs. That would not simply be a licensing system applying to organised hunts and organised hare coursing as they now exist, since licences would have to be sought and obtained by numerous individual men and women—for example, the people who own and use terriers in connection with the hunting of mammals.
      The schedule would also introduce a national system for the inspection of premises. I am unclear from part II of schedule 2 whether the inspection regime would include the inspection of the homes of people who held a licence, but it certainly would appear to apply to hunt kennels, stables and farm buildings. That clearly would be a considerable task for a hunting authority to undertake. It would require an extensive body of detailed regulation and a fair number of employees or agents who would be prepared to act on behalf of the proposed hunting authority in implementing such a system of licensing and inspection.
      Mr. Lembit Öpik: I shall go into this point in more detail should I catch your eye, Sir Alan, but I recognise that it would be an extensive project to inspect all those premises in the way our schedule would require. Nevertheless, we think that that is a price worth paying to make sure that hunting is conducted in a transparent manner. I appreciate that I may differ from the hon. Gentleman on that point.
      Mr. Lidington: I understand and pay tribute to the motives that generated the proposal from the hon. Gentleman and his allies.
      Mr. Tony Banks: The hon. Gentleman paid tribute to members of the Middle Way Group,
      362
      including the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik), but can be explain why the three leading protagonists of the middle way all voted against the Bill's Second Reading? Had they been successful, it would effectively have excluded them from considering their own proposal. Is it not a fact that the members of the Middle Way Group are nothing more than subfusc hunters?
      Mr. Lidington: The hon. Gentleman has a long track record of seeking a complete ban on hunting and he is being true to his history. It is for the members of the Middle Way Group to speak for themselves if they get the opportunity and to justify the stand that they have taken and will take today. As the hon. Gentleman said, and as I implied in my introductory remarks, the choice between the first and second options at the end of today's proceedings is really a choice for those who believe, as I do and as the Home Secretary does, that hunting should be allowed to continue.
      4.15 pm
      Mr. Nicholas Soames: While I endorse my hon. Friend's views about the work and authorship of the Middle Way Group and their good intention, I am sure that it would not be his intention to suggest that the Masters of Foxhounds Association does not vigorously and robustly police the rules of hunting.
      Mr. Lidington: My hon. Friend's comment is apt and true, and it is one reason why I believe that self-regulation is the option that the Committee should prefer when we come to divide.
      My greatest doubt about schedule 2—the so-called middle way option—concerns its supporters' optimism that it will be a solution that the opponents of hunting will accept. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire is a man who knows his Bible. I consider that the vision in chapter 11 of the Book of Isaiah—the vision of the wolf dwelling with the lamb—is more likely to be achieved than those who have been opposed to hunting as a matter of principle for many years agreeing on the middle way option.
      We are dealing not only with people who have put forward in this place the case for a statutory ban on hunting with hounds, but with people outside the House who have shown that they are prepared to use intimidation, threats of violence and actual violence to achieve their ends. We are talking about people who within the past few weeks have used nail bombs against ordinary British citizens who have some link, direct or indirect, with hunting, which remains a perfectly lawful pursuit.
      Today, a message has been posted on the website of the League Against Cruel Sports by someone who perhaps sums up the extreme view on that side of the debate. He says to his allies:
      Please try and come along to the House of Commons today if you support a ban on hunting.
      We need as many people as possible to show the hunters what real scum they are. Perhaps we could also smash their tents they've been sleeping in over the past couple of days.
      The message is signed "Vegan", and the signature is followed by what appear to be two kisses. Such irrational and unreasoning hostility—indeed, hatred—has been

      363
      experienced by many ordinary decent men and women in different parts of the country who enjoy supporting or following lawful hunts.
      Ms Claire Ward: While no one would justify such activities, will the hon. Gentleman tell me whether he justifies the attack on my constituency office by pro-hunt supporters in the middle of last night? The attack damaged my office, making it impossible for my assistants to gain entry for a good few hours and preventing them from doing the work necessary to help my constituents. Will the hon. Gentleman condemn those who took part in that outrageous activity?
      Mr. Lidington: I believe that all parties to the debate should stay strictly within the law; that any allegation that the law has been broken—whether in the case that the hon. Lady describes, in those that I have mentioned, or in those to which other hon. Members have referred during other debates—should be properly investigated by the police; and that, if the evidence to do so exists, a prosecution should be brought before the courts in the usual way.
      I do not believe that the agreement sought by the Middle Way Group is likely to be reached, which in turn means that there will be continuing controversy about some of the elements of the group's proposal. If it were enacted, there would be a risk of continuing controversy about the proposed selection by the Secretary of State of the members of the hunting authority. There would be arguments about whether the members of the authority represented the balance of interests envisaged in the schedule. There is also a question in my mind about whether the proposed authority would be likely ever to reach a decision by consensus, or whether there would instead be a series of bitter arguments about codes of practice and individual licensing decisions—arguments which would presumably be settled by a vote among the members of the authority, without the consensus sought by the authors of the proposal.
      Mr. Öpik: In the context of the concerns voiced by the hon. Gentleman and others, the Middle Way Group recognises that it is creating a framework within which such issues will have to be resolved. Throughout, we have tried to create a balance: for example, we have specified that the majority of members of the hunting authority must have no vested interest in either side of the hunting debate. We are sympathetic to the concerns that have been expressed, but we believe that they ire capable of being resolved during the set-up period that the Minister described.
      Mr. Lidington: If the hon. Gentleman's proposal were made law, my hope would be that his optimism would be justified by the way in which events unfolded. I have expressed my doubts about whether that is likely.
      Faced with the choice, I should greatly prefer clause 2 and schedule 2, whatever the imperfections, to the complete ban provided for in clause 3 and schedule 3. I believe that a ban is objectionable in principle. It would impose severe restrictions on the freedom of tens of thousands of our fellow citizens and would do so with no gain in terms of animal welfare. I have yet to hear from those who advocate a ban on hunting any persuasive account of how the much greater use of shooting and
      364
      snaring that would inevitably follow the imposition of a ban on hunting with hounds would lead to a beneficial outcome in animal welfare terms. Indeed, the reverse is true: shooting and snaring are unselective; there is no closed season for shooting or snaring foxes; and shooting and snaring carry a far greater risk than hunting of an animal being wounded and left to die a lingering and painful death. Indeed, that analysis lay behind the conclusion of the Burns report that there were serious animal welfare implications in all the alternative methods of mammal control considered by the inquiry.
      A detailed examination of schedule 3 gives cause for real disquiet about its practical implications. The offences are not tightly defined, there is no definition of hunting and the schedule makes no reference to cruelty—all matters that should be explored further in Standing Committee.
      Mr. Banks: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Lidington: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I want to make progress.
      The police powers envisaged in the schedule are draconian. The schedule would give the police the power to arrest without warrant anyone who they thought had committed, was committing, or was about to commit, an offence as defined by the schedule.
      The maximum penalty that the Bill proposes for hunting with hounds, if the practice were to be outlawed, is a fine. However, under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, those offences in respect of which the police have a power of arrest without warrant are normally those so serious that they carry a prison sentence of five years or longer. To add hunting with hounds to that list of arrestable offences seems to be employing disproportionate and draconian enforcement measures to the problem, even judged by the likes of those who are seeking a ban.
      Mr. Banks: I apologise for taking the hon. Gentleman back slightly. Through the miracles of modern technology, he referred to something on the website of the League Against Cruel Sports. That item was not authorised by the league or put on the website by it, and it has been removed. The league believes that it was a bit of black propaganda. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would like to have that information.
      Mr. Lidington: I am glad that the league has removed it. If the hon. Gentleman reads Hansard tomorrow, I think he will find that I made it clear that the message had been posted by its author on the league's website.
      Assaulting or obstructing a police constable in the performance of his duty is not an arrestable offence. However, if the schedule is enacted, letting one's dog hunt a rabbit will potentially become an arrestable offence. That seems hardly the best use of scarce police time and resources.
      Yesterday, the Home Office announced a huge increase in violent crime. Today, the Government are saying that the top priority for government action and for new law is a Bill to ban foxhunting. The Government are showing a sense of priorities that verges on the surreal. A ban on hunting would be both illiberal and intolerant. It would harm individual freedom without benefits to animal

      365
      welfare. It would involve powers and penalties out of all proportion to the alleged problem. When those of us who intend to do so vote against a ban tonight, we shall be voting for the liberty of our constituents, for the livelihoods of our constituents and for plain common sense.
      Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: I shall intervene only briefly because I have to attend a statutory instruments Committee. Perhaps the House will understand if I leave the Chamber after I have spoken.
      My right hon. and hon. Friends will last weekend have received two videos in the post. One of them was called "The Killing Game", and I do not dissent from its contents. It was produced by an organisation called Protect our Wild Animals. Another video was sent by my friend and colleague, Lord Bragg—Melvyn Bragg. It sets out the story of a man who lives in the Lake district in a neighbouring constituency to mine and who farms on Langdale. He has a particular problem which he has set out in the video. I appeal to my right hon. and hon. Friends not to put that video in the bin, which is what we usually do with videos. I appeal to my right hon. and hon. Friends who may not be in the Chamber—they may be in their offices, or wherever—to consider the video's contents.
      I am against hunting, and I have opposed it all my life. I will vote for a complete ban this evening. However, there is a problem in parts of the country which is not being addressed in the debate. That problem is what will happen in the Lake district, parts of Scotland and, I am told, parts of Wales in the event that there is a total ban.
      The problem is simple and is set out in "Eric's Story". Eric Taylforth is a fell farmer, and he was filmed last December in the snow looking after his lambs. He argues that, in the event of hunting being ended, he will lose lambs, and he refuses to allow guns on to his fells.
      I shall not be here in the next Parliament, but there will be complaints from somewhere in the country the moment that the shooters appear on the fells under the pretext that they are setting out to kill foxes. It will not work. An invasion of rifles and weaponry into a national park such as mine, where people roam over the fells throughout the year, cannot be allowed. My sons were on top of Latrigg, a fell in the Lake district, only a few weeks ago at Christmas in the snow. People roam the fells the year round. If the Bill is enacted in its present form, the shooters will be allowed into the Lake district and they will do much damage and frighten many people.
      4.30 pm
      I appeal to my right hon. and hon. Friends to address this important problem. One or two farmers in the Lake district are prepared to see the shooters there, but in reality—
      Mrs. Jackie Lawrence: Will my hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. Campbell-Savours: No, I want to be brief. I am sorry, but many people want to speak.
      366
      I appeal to my right hon. and hon. Friends to watch the video.
      Sir Patrick Cormack: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Campbell-Savours: I am sorry, but I do not intend to give way.
      Some of my right hon. and hon. Friends have told me that their minds are made up, that they do not want to consider the video and will throw it in the bin. That is not the way to proceed in a matter such as this. We must consider the other case. We must consider the special problems of people who refuse completely to accept the right of the gun user in the Lake district to shoot the fox.
      Mr. Michael Howard: My remarks this afternoon will be brief. I gave my reasons for opposing a ban on hunting in the Adjournment debate on the Burns report on 7 July 2000. As I said then, it is clear, on any reading of the report, that there is no animal welfare case for the banning of hunting. The report makes it clear that the only consequence of a ban would be an increased use of other methods of keeping the fox population under control which would, in the phrase made famous by the report, compromise the welfare of the fox to at least as great an extent as hunting. The arguments that I set out then ware not answered in that debate and have not been answered since. I do not believe that they can be answered.
      Today, I want to make a different point. We meet to debate this issue the day after the Home Secretary announced the crime figures for the year to last September. They showed a sharp increase in violent crime and a 21 per cent. increase in robbery. The reasons for that extremely distressing development have been extensively canvassed by Opposition Members. There are 2,500 fewer police officers than there were at the time of the previous election. There is widespread demoralisation among the police. The Home Secretary has caused more than 26,000 prisoners to be released early so that they may be free to re-offend. [Interruption.] It is against that background—Labour Members do not seem to be aware of this—that the House must consider the Bill today. The Government are, in effect, telling the police, "We don't think you have enough to do. We think you have time on your hands, so we will give you an additional task, an extra burden. We will ask you to enforce a ban on an activity which has been lawful in Britain since time immemorial."
      Mr. Soames: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that it is said that the Association of Chief Police Officers has made representations to the Home Secretary to the effect that, with the present resources, it could not possibly be hoped effectively to police a ban such as is proposed.
      Mr. Howard: I have not seen that report and do not know whether it has been made public. It would be helpful to the House if the Minister responded to my hon. Friend's comments when he comes to reply to the debate.
      Mr. Ivor Caplin: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman answer a simple question? Is he telling the House that police budgets today do not take account of the cost of policing hunts?
      Mr. Howard: I do not think that there is any comparison or parallel to be drawn. The provision

      367
      proposes imposing a new burden on the police of enforcing an entirely new criminal offence. That is the Government's response to the crime figures that they announced yesterday.
      Mr. Hancock: I remember that argument being put forward a while ago when we banned firearms. The suggestion then was that previous owners of firearms, like me, would go and shoot illegally and the police would have a big job policing that. However, that never manifested itself. Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman really telling the House that if a ban is agreed by Parliament, hunters and their dogs will continue to hunt across the countryside, and that those people will commit a crime?
      Mr. Howard: I am saying that the provision will impose an additional burden on the police, and that is an entirely frivolous response from the Government to the crime figures that they announced yesterday.
      Mr. Lidington: Did my right hon. and learned Friend see the interview that the assistant chief constable of South Yorkshire police gave to Sky News earlier today? With the diplomacy which senior officers always deploy in their public statements, he said:
      there's no doubt a total ban would present the police nationally and within individual forces with quite a challenge.
      Mr. Howard: I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing that to my attention. I did not see that interview, but I hope that it will have an effect on the Government's responses.
      Mr. Mike O'Brien: I am sure that, as a former Home Secretary, the right hon. and learned Gentleman would be interested to know the view of the Association of Chief Police Officers communicated to Home Office officials. It is that, by and large, the expenditure of resources on dealing with hunts and protests against hunts now is probably very similar to any costs that the police are likely to face if a ban is imposed. I am not saying that to advocate one position or another or even to disagree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman's argument. It is merely a point of information which, as it is ACPO's view, will no doubt interest him.
      Mr. Howard: I note that the Minister's summary of ACPO's response was prefaced by the words "by and large". I hope that he will make that response public: I hope that he will put it before the House so that we can all make up our own minds about what ACPO actually said. I should much prefer that to the Minister's garbled summary of its response. I should like to see what the report itself says.
      Mr. Paice rose—
      Mr. Howard: I shall give way once more, but then I must make progress.
      Mr. Paice: All the interventions that my right hon. and learned Friend has just taken on the issue of police resources ignore the fact that the police cannot cope with what they are supposed to do at present. Reference was made to people continuing to hunt illegally. However,
      368
      is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that that already happens? Throughout East Anglia, there is a curse of illegal hare coursing against which the police, at present, cannot enforce the law. Therefore, enforcing further bans would only make a difficult situation worse.
      Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend makes an utterly cogent point.
      Mr. Gordon Prentice: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Howard: No; I have been generous in giving way and I want to make progress.
      The Home Secretary, apparently, is going to vote for clause 2. I shall say a few words about that provision. Anyone tempted by it should really have been put off by the fact that it has been produced by a group called the Middle Way Group. If that were not enough, Members should have been put on their guard by the fact that the leading promoter of the middle way option is the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) who, for all his many and varied qualities, is a Liberal Democrat. I thought that, in many quarters of the House, there was general recognition that few problems are not made worse by the intervention of the Liberal Democrats. Indeed, that used to be one of the few points on which the present Home Secretary and I were in almost total agreement.
      Mr. Luff: My right hon. and learned Friend might want to know that I wrote the brief that the parliamentary counsel used to draft clause 2 and schedule 2, for which I take the credit.
      Mr. Howard: With all due respect I say to my hon. Friend that even Homer nods.
      I ask hon. Members to consider from the police's point of view the effect of the middle way proposal set out in clause 2. It is bad enough for the police to have to enforce a total ban, but the middle way would impose a far more complicated task on them. They would have to take a view in every case on whether the terms of the licence under which the particular hunting event in question occurred were being observed. Hon. Members should consider the nature of the burden that such a provision would impose on the police.
      It beggars belief that any serious Government who face an explosion of violent crime would even contemplate distracting the police from the urgent task of tackling that problem by imposing upon them large, uncertain and impractical burdens such as those proposed in the Bill. However, this Administration are not a serious Government. If any further proof is needed that they are a trivial, frivolous and irresponsible Government, the Bill provides it. The only question that remains to be decided is whether there is a trivial, frivolous and irresponsible majority in the House. If not, clause I will be supported tonight.
      Mr. Michael J. Foster: I should like to address my first point to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, although he is absent. It is not too late to be converted to the need to ban hunting with dogs. For evidence, I turn to my local evening paper, the Evening News, which carried a story yesterday about an

      369
      11-year-old girl called Sarah Jeavons, who opposed my 1997 private Member's Bill on hunting. She was eight at the time and took the day off school to plead with me to abandon plans to ban hunting with dogs. Her family were due to join the march later this year to oppose what they consider to be the Government's plans on hunting with dogs.
      Mrs. Jeavons, Sarah's mum, says in the story
      People used to say that anti-hunt people are bad, but the pro-hunters are worse.
      She then goes on to relate what happened to her last Saturday:
      Sarah and I took our dogs for a walk on Saturday morning and, when we got back to our house, our drive was blocked. The whipper-in was on the lawn. There was a pack of terrier men in my drive and they were harassing my children.
      Mrs. Jeavons says that Sarah, who is now 11, was reduced to tears, that the whipper-in had to take control of her horse and that the hounds chased after her cat and tried to kill it. She now claims that she and her family are confirmed antis and will not continue to support the pro-hunt movement.
      Mr. Luff: As the events that the hon. Gentleman describes occurred in my constituency, I have done some research on them. It is no surprise that, not for the first time, he is building his house on a foundation of sand, not stone. The background is that hunt politics is brutal and that the Jeavons family had not paid their cap fees to go hunting with the Croome. They were, therefore, not allowed to do so and the story is their way of getting their own back on the hunt.
      The events did not occur in the described manner. Something significantly less serious occurred. Even if they were as described—the Worcester Evening News now knows that they were not—I invite the hon. Gentleman to reflect on the fact that, contrary to the comments of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), the middle way offers a solution to such difficulties, as it would ban a hunt that breaks the terms of its licence, goes where it is not wanted or compromises public safety. I invite him also to recognise that the events were not as they are described.
      Mr. Foster: I appreciate that the Evening News has got a good story. The joint master of the local hunt is a Mr. Rob Adams. Mr. Adams is a friend of the hon. Gentleman and was, when I last spoke to him, a member of the executive committee of his Conservative association. Mr. Adams said:
      I can only think that this was a conflict of personalities.
      I must say that the events described in my local paper make that the most understated fact of the year.
      4.45 pm
      Option 1 represents the pro-hunt view and proposes self-regulation. I reject that view, but at least I understand where people who support option 1 are coming from. They take the view, on a "civil libertarian" basis, that the animal welfare issue is not sufficiently serious to warrant an infringement of so-called civil liberties, and that
      370
      self-regulation should therefore be allowed to continue. They describe that as a principled view. It has been expressed today, mainly by the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), but I reject it totally.
      I do, however, agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman's assessment of option 2, the middle way, which I consider to be misleading, to say the least. The hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) spoke of the imposition of some sort of regulatory framework. No doubt we shall discover in due course whether or not the incidents that I have described took place on Saturday, but let us say that they did. The proposals of the Middle Way Group suggest an assumption that the hunt involved would be punished in some way, and prevented from hunting again. To that I would say, "Get real"; that is not what will happen in the real world of hunting with dogs.
      The Middle Way Group does not propose a compromise. When a wild mammal is chased to the point of exhaustion before being torn apart, is that really something on which we can compromise? It is not; there is no way we can reach a compromise.
      As for the so-called independence of the hunting authority, the authority will be paid for by licence fees paid by people who hunt. Those who want to hunt will pay their fees and go off with their licences. The saying "He who pays the piper calls the tune" has often been quoted to me, and that is exactly what will happen in the case of the so-called independent authority. Those who hunt will be paying to keep the authority going, and I cannot think for a minute that it will suddenly turn around and say, "We do not like a certain aspect of the practice, and we will not take licence money from those who engage in it."
      Mr. John Bercow: I think that the hon. Gentleman's argument is flawed. It seems to me, and to many of my hon. Friends, that what is more important is the composition of the authority and its practices. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding) for her assent to that proposition.
      Does the hon. Gentleman, on the strength of the logic that he has employed, object profoundly to the Advertising Standards Authority, which operates on precisely the same basis?
      Mr. Foster: We are dealing with a completely different matter.
      Mr. Bercow: Answer the question.
      Mr. Foster: Let me address it. Advertising as an industry is keen to promote itself, and therefore will pay towards an independent authority. In the case of hunting, what we are apparently trying to say is that we will regulate the practice and punish those who fail. We are dealing here with an animal welfare matter, not with whether a particular advertisement should be shown on television. We are dealing with a practice that is inhumane and cruel to wild mammals.
      Mr. Hogg rose—
      Mr. Öpik rose—
      Mr. Quentin Davies rose—
      Mr. Foster: I will make a bit more progress now, but I will give way later.

      371
      The Middle Way Group wants to know whether a principled stance is being taken. Again I find myself in agreement with the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe. We would not be in a position to make a judgment on whether someone who is hunting is carrying a licence at the point at which the police came to investigate the activity.
      Mr. Hogg: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Foster: I should like to make a little more progress.
      If the Middle Way Group is not careful, this is what will happen. A couple of lads in an inner-city area—let us say Perry Barr in Birmingham, for want of a better example—might well be out chasing a fox with their dogs. What is wrong is the activity itself; whether those lads had a licence in their back pockets is irrelevant.
      Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman suggested that the hunting authority would not be able to act impartially, because it is funded by hunts. I am no particular supporter of the authority—I favour self-regulation—but, on any view, the authority's membership will comprise persons nominated by the Secretary of State. It will therefore not be beholden to the hunts, although the hunts may finance them.
      Mr. Foster: I accept that the members will be the Secretary of State's appointees, but the right hon. and learned Gentleman will accept that it will be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to get people who are neutral on the issue, which raises passions on both sides of the argument.
      Mr. Öpik: As the hon. Gentleman knows, although we differ I respect his position. On his point about funding, does he not accept that it is simple? If an individual or organisation does not get a licence, it simply will not hunt. It will not be allowed to hunt; it will be illegal. As such, it would be difficult for them, for example, to blackmail the authority in the way that he described.
      Mr. Foster: I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising the point about the illegality of not having a licence. The Middle Way Group would make so-called criminals of people who engaged in hunting that was not licensed. One of the arguments against the Bill is that it will make criminals of so-called law-abiding citizens, but the Middle Way Group must acknowledge that it will do exactly that. The difference is that those people may not belong to the right club, or may not have the right licence. I do not care whether they wear a red jacket, a pink jacket or a donkey jacket. It is the activity that I am concerned about and that I oppose.
      Mr. Hancock: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that two points are missing from the argument on the middle way? First, anyone who breaks the law does so of their own choice, but that is not being recognised. Parliament is not forcing anyone to commit a criminal act. Secondly, it is not about the licensing authority, but about how we would actually police the whole hunt from start to finish—from
      372
      letting the dogs go until the kill. That could take four or five hours and spread over seven miles. I have not yet heard a coherent argument that that can be achieved.
      Mr. Foster: The hon. Gentleman makes his point coherently. It needs no further comment from me.
      Mr. Desmond Swayne: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Foster: No. I want to be brief.
      Option 3, which involves a complete ban, is the most consistent and principled of the three options that we must consider. Hon. Members will have weighed up the evidence presented by Burns. I have looked at the issue since my election to the House and have not yet come across evidence to lead me to any conclusion but that hunting with dogs is cruel and unnecessary. The distress that is caused to animals leads people to make a moral judgment—I accept that—that it is time that the practice was stopped.
      Mr. Eric Martlew: My hon. Friend talks about evidence. I am sure that he has received a video recently from my noble Friend Lord Bragg of Wigton. I enjoyed the title because it was called "Eric's Tale", but the rest was a bit of a fallacy. Is he aware of a video called "Cumbrian Tales", which was shot by the BBC and shown on television'? It showed the village of Ireby, where Lord Bragg has a house. When the local shepherd, who had a problem with a rogue fox and who was pro-hunting, decided that something had to be done, he did not call for the Cumberland Farmers foxhounds—he got a number of friends together, and they flushed the fox out of the woods and shot it. Is that the right way forward?
      Mr. Foster: Option 3 recognises that in upland areas the flushing out of a fox to be shot by a gun is more humane. It is recognised in the Bill as a way in which upland areas can deal with that issue, but it is beyond me how people can believe that dogs, when they sniff out the scent of a fox in the pursuit, can distinguish between the rogue fox that is causing the problem and a fox that happens to be in the neighbourhood—dogs are not that clever.
      A private Member's Bill was introduced in 1997; then we had the Burns report, an independent inquiry; and we now have a free vote, as we did on Second Reading of that Bill, and a range of options from which to choose. I should hope that the creation of those three mechanisms will help those in another place to accept that whichever judgment the House reaches today, that judgment should prevail. They should accept that hon. Members have taken a considered and serious view of the matter.
      I hope that progress will not be further frustrated. Consideration needs to be given to whether some of the threats that have been made and outlined in The Guardian today and in The Observer on Sunday are in contempt of the Committee. The threats are certainly contemptuous of hon. Members.
      Four years ago, I was placed in a unique position with my private Member's Bill. I was, and still am, opposed to hunting.
      Mr. Luff: The hon. Gentleman should listen to his constituents.
      Mr. Foster: That is exactly what I did. My constituents asked me, in the local newspaper, to take up the issue.

      373
      I stood on an election platform declaring that I was opposed to hunting with dogs, and I had the unique opportunity of coming first in the ballot. I could have chosen another issue for my Bill. If I did so, however, how would I be able to look people in the eye and say, "I am opposed to it, but when I was given the chance I did nothing about it"? I did not do that and I would not do that. I am pleased that I took up the challenge, and I am pleased that the Government are bringing the matter to a conclusion.
      Mr. John Maples: I do not think that it will come as a surprise to the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster) if I say that I do not agree with him. I should like to put the alternative case, for allowing hunting to continue.
      I have twice had an experience, which I imagine is shared by other hon. Members, of coming to the House to vote in one way but, after perhaps mistakenly listening to the debate, changing my mind. It happened to me on whether the European convention on human rights should be incorporated in United Kingdom law, and more recently on whether we should have an elected House of Lords. In both cases, as I said, I made the mistake of listening to the debate and changing my mind. I speak today in the hope—which I hope is not entirely forlorn—that I might persuade just one person who thinks that hunting should be banned to think again.
      I do not hunt. I occasionally went beagling when I was a teenager. I have hunted, shot and fished very unsuccessfully, but I do not expect that I shall do any of them again. However, a great many of my constituents participate in them. I represent half of Warwickshire, a rural area in which hunting has been going on for a very long time, and a significant minority regard hunting as a right, a freedom and, indeed, a passion. The opponents of hunting do not realise how passionate those who hunt are about it. It is not only a hobby, a pastime or something that they do on Saturday afternoons. I think that their freedom to hunt is important.
      As the hon. Member for Worcester said, we have a perceived conflict between animal welfare and personal liberty. I believe that personal freedom is a fundamental aspect of our citizenship. It is a fundamental part of the House's job to protect the freedoms of minorities. It is easy to protect the freedoms of majorities; they have no problem at all. However, unpopular or small minorities deserve to have their freedoms protected as well. They should not be judged by opinion polls or by what the majority of people think. If we were to legislate by opinion poll, we would have capital punishment back in a flash. I expect that the majority of Labour Members would not want to see that, and neither would I.
      We cannot ban things simply because we do not like them. The only conceivable reason for banning foxhunting and removing people's fundamental freedom to hunt is that a ban is necessary on overwhelming animal welfare grounds. I do not believe that those grounds exist. I do not believe that the Burns report discloses them, and I believe that the alternatives are very probably worse.
      There is a rather misplaced and cuddly notion about foxes—that they are curly things that sit on the end of one's bed and keep one warm at night—but they are
      374
      killers. If hon. Members are really worried about cruelty to animals, they should be more keen to ban foxes than to ban hunting. Every year, an enormous number of animals such as lambs, piglets, chickens and ducks are gratuitously killed by foxes. Foxes do not kill only the animal that they want to eat; they kill hundreds and thousands of them. For that reason, they are judged to be vermin. They might be rather better looking vermin than rats, but they are vermin and they have to be controlled.
      Mr. Gordon Prentice: The hare is not vermin or a pest. The Burns report makes the point that, in hare coursing, hares are pursued for entertainment—sport. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could share with us his views on whether hare coursing should continue.
      5 pm
      Mr. Maples: The Burns report dealt with those issues. I want to focus on foxhunting. [Interruption.] I shall make a short speech about one aspect of the issue, and that aspect is foxhunting. If the hon. Gentleman wants to introduce a Bill to ban hare coursing alone, and which would not cover foxhunting, that can be discussed. I wish to deal with the issue of foxhunting, because it affects a great many of my constituents.
      Mr. Hogg: Is not the truth that all country and field sports are the same, and that no sensible distinction can be made between angling, shooting and foxhunting? They stand or fall together, and those of us who stand for freedom should defend them all.
      Mr. Maples: I intend to move on to some of the anomalies in the attitudes of those who think that foxhunting should be banned.
      Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Hancock: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Maples: I want to deal with one matter first.
      The animal welfare issue is fundamental to the argument of those who want to ban hunting. Anyone with any knowledge of the countryside knows that the alternatives are worse. At the end of a hunt, a fox is either dead or alive, but trapping and shooting often leave foxes injured. People who want to ban foxhunting must show that it is more cruel and contrary to the animal's welfare than shooting or trapping. I contend that it is not.
      Trapping is a horrible process. Foxes in traps bite off their own legs. They are quite smart: they inhale to help themselves get out, only to find that the trap tightens on them when they have to breathe again. Such deaths are horrible and revolting, and much worse than death by hunting. However, if animals have to be controlled, some way of killing them has to be found. I contend that foxhunting is undoubtedly the most efficient method.
      Mr. Hoyle: The hon. Gentleman is clearly not aware that not all foxes are killed by hunting with hounds. Far from it: most foxes are shot, trapped or poisoned. That will remain so whether hunting continues or not.
      Mr. Maples: Poisoning is, in fact, already illegal, but I am aware of what the hon. Gentle man says. I consider that, if the Bill goes through, about 14,000 foxes killed by hunts each year will be trapped or shot.
      Mr. Banks: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Maples: No, I want to move on. The hon. Gentleman spoke at length on Second Reading, and may get a chance to speak later today.
      The illogicality of the opposition to foxhunting lies not only in the question of whether the alternatives are worse or better, but in our attitude to different animals. Mice and rats are vermin, and I doubt that any hon. Member would hesitate to poison or trap them, even though the deaths involved are pretty unpleasant.
      The truth is that most wild animals have, and are, predators. The approach of those who support the Bill is illogical. Why are fishing and shooting not covered by the Bill? I suspect that the answer is that 4 million people fish and 1 million people shoot. I suspect, too, that they will be next on the list, and I suggest that those who shoot and fish had better join those who support hunting.
      I know that the Prime Minister has said that he has no intention of banning shooting and fishing, but the anti-hunting lobby is open about its agenda, and its supporters say that, once they have banned hunting, they will aim to nail the next target.
      Why do we not outlaw halal butchery, which is a revoltingly cruel practice? The answer has to do with the sensibilities of an ethnic minority, and I happen to think that that is right. However, we are sensible to the rights and beliefs of that minority, but not to the rights and beliefs of those who hunt. Why do we not outlaw battery hens? A hunted fox might meet a pretty unpleasant end, but it does not live a disgusting life for three or six months in 6 sq ins of space.
      We keep two cats in south Warwickshire, and I expect that they do far more damage to the local wildlife than the hunt. Cats are cruel animals: they do not merely kill their victims, but injure them and then play with them. That shows the illogicality of the Bill's approach: for example, it allows dogs to be used to flush out wild mammals that can then be killed by a bird of prey.
      I could take the proposition advanced in the Bill from a vegetarian who wears plastic shoes and does not believe that even mosquitoes should be killed. The hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) may fit into the category, but is the Bill really about animal welfare?
      If we examine the animal welfare issues at stake, we experience difficulty in concluding t hat the other options are better. I ask right hon. and hon. Members who are in favour of the Bill whether it is really the welfare of the fox that they are concerned about, or is it that they do not like people who hunt and the whole process of it? I think that there is a prejudice here. I dc not say that in an insulting or rude way; I merely ask people to consider it because in the arguments on the ism that I have had, that has, very often, been the truth.
      I should like to say a few words about the Warwickshire hunt. I am not speaking for myself, except in the sense that the diminishment of the freedoms of my fellow citizens diminishes mine. My primary purpose in speaking is because a hunt has existed in Warwickshire
      376
      for hundreds of years. Every week about 200 people ride with the hunt—probably not the same 200 every week—another 50 or 100 support it on foot and there are many other supporters.
      The hunt contains a cross-section of the community, with very many ordinary people taking part. There are not enough toffs in Warwickshire to send 200 out a week with grooms and changes of horses. Most people look after their own horse. It has 100 to 120 hounds, which, of course, will be killed if the Bill goes through. [Interruption.] They will be killed. They are no use as pets because they are pack animals.
      Mr. Ian Cawsey: The hon. Gentleman no doubt already knows that hunting dogs are killed routinely in mid-term in their lives anyway, and are killed as puppies if they show no intention to hunt when they are in the cubbing season. The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals has said that it will put into place procedures to ensure that dogs are rehoused in the event—[Interruption.] A lot of right hon. and hon. Members are shaking their heads, but that is the case. Will the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that those dogs face a much better future than if they stay with the hunt, where they will certainly be destroyed?
      Mr. Maples: Will the hon. Gentleman give me a commitment that if the Bill goes through he will take one of the hounds of the Warwickshire hunt and keep it as a pet in his house? They make very unsatisfactory pets.
      Mr. Cawsey: I take dog responsibility very seriously, and I have my own pets. A dog is for life, not just for a debate. However, I give the hon. Gentleman this pledge—that in association with the RSPCA, I will play my part.
      Mr. Maples: I do not think that that was an unequivocal yes.
      The fact is that those dogs would go. Many jobs would go—seven full-time people work there, and, if the Burns report is right, there are probably 40 jobs on average associated with the hunt. They are very respectable people, not louts and hooligans.
      Mr. David Taylor: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Maples: No, I should like to make some progress because I know that a lot of other people want to speak.
      I am not speaking about louts and hooligans who get drunk at football matches and smash up the town. These people care for the countryside. Many are farmers who own and look after the countryside. They keep dogs and horses.
      A hunt is also a force in the community. It is an institution of rural society. It is about much more than just hunting. On Monday, the Prime Minister was on an estate in the east end of London and he talked about rebuilding our cities. He said that he thought that communities operated best when empowered to control their own destiny. I wonder why that is not so for the countryside. Hunting is a powerful institution in the countryside. It binds the rural society together in a way that other institutions do not.

      377
      If we ban hunting, we must face not only the issues of personal liberty and animal welfare but the consequences of our actions. The RSPCA will have to find 20,000 hounds nice loving homes, like that of the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Mr. Cawsey), or they will have to be killed. I think that it is more likely that most of them will be killed because they do not make successful pets, particularly after being a member of a pack of hounds.
      According to the Burns report, about 14,000 jobs, some of them part-time, are at stake, connected with blacksmiths, saddlers, vets and stables. National hunt racing will be seriously threatened. There will be far fewer horses because many people who hunt will not keep horses if hunting is made illegal. The result of everything that we would be giving away or sacrificing would be that about 14,000 foxes would be shot or trapped instead of being hunted and killed by hounds. They will not be saved. Those 14,000 foxes will not be alive at the end of the year when they would otherwise have been dead. They will have been trapped or shot instead, and 70,000 to 80,000 people who hunt or participate in hunting will have lost what, to them, is a valuable freedom. The consequences are not only practical—I believe that personal freedom is fundamental.
      Last year, the House spent an enormous amount of its time, perfectly correctly, debating the age of consent for homosexuals. I do not know how many homosexual men between the ages of 16 and 18 will take advantage of that legislation. I suspect that only a few thousand, if that, will do so. Some 80,000 will be directly affected by this Bill. When we talk about individuals' freedom to behave as they want, we cannot take just the people with whom we agree and dismiss the rest. We have to consider personal freedom across the waterfront, and we have to be very careful about taking it away.
      It seems to me that the welfare gain for foxes is at best zero. It is probably negative, because trapping and shooting are worse than hunting. Freedom must prevail. If prejudice prevails and the banners win the argument, what will be next? Fishing and shooting, I am sure, will be next. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Hon. Members say no, but it will be the next campaign.
      I personally feel about boxing all the things that people feel about hunting. I find it barbaric. I feel that it demeans humans, but if people want to do it, they should be free to do so. I do not want to do it; I do not want to watch it; but I believe that people who do should be absolutely free to do it.
      I started one of the notes that I made for today by saying that the ban would not affect me. In the sense that I do not hunt, it will not. However, it will affect me because if we take away part of my neighbours' freedom, we take away part of mine, and we are all involved in each other's freedom and the concept of personal freedom.
      What about my children? I have young children. My daughter is mad about ponies, for some reason that I cannot understand and try to disabuse her of. What if she decides that she wants to hunt? Why should her generation be the first in Warwickshire for hundreds of years—no, for ever—not to be allowed to hunt?
      I hope that those who propose the Bill will reflect carefully on whether they really believe that the animal welfare gain outweighs the loss of personal freedom.
      378
      The freedoms of minorities may be ours legally to dispose of by legislation, but surely our duty to protect and defend those freedoms is far more important.
      The House has a long and honourable tradition of defending liberties, especially those of minorities, and it should not take them away for no clear or obvious benefit or gain, even for the foxes.
      Mr. Tony Banks: If the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples) reads the Burns report, he will see that Burns says that shooting and lamping is preferable to hunting. So there are alternatives. I agree with the hon. Gentleman about snares. Snaring is an appalling thing. I wish to see snaring completely removed from the countryside as fast as possible.
      The hon. Gentleman was right when he said that foxes were killers. Yes, they are. That is how nature made them. It is true that they do a lot of damage where they can get into areas such as hen coops. It is up to farmers to husband their animals properly. I saw a fox in my garden in Forest Gate. For those who lo not know where Forest Gate is—they might get it from the name—it is at the edge of Epping forest. We see foxes fairly regularly. I was appalled, and wondered how the fox had got in. They are canny creatures, as the hon. Member for Stratfordon-Avon said.
      I have made sure, as best as I can possibly manage, that my cats are kept in at night so that they do not get caught by the fox. The fox will certainly go for them if he gets an opportunity. We just have to be aware that the fox is how nature made it, Accommodate it in the way in which we look after our gardens or farms, and make sure that we protect our pets and animals. That is how nature intended it to be, and it is the best way of proceeding.
      I shall support option 3 and a total ban, which is hardly a surprise. I shall vote against both options 1 and 2. I hope that all my hon. Friends on both sides of the House on this argument will do exactly the same.
      Sir Patrick Cormack: I am pleased to count the hon. Gentleman as a friend, but he has just accepted that foxes do damage. Does he accept that the fox population has to be controlled, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples) said in his admirable speech?
      5.15 pm
      Mr. Banks: There are other ways of controlling the fox population. We should be prepared to live with foxes as a fact of nature, and take the necessary precautions to protect our property and our animals, whether in farming, rural or urban areas. When it can clearly be shown that foxes are a nuisance; and are doing damage, there are alternatives to hunting them. The Burns report made a clear and categorical statement regarding the alternatives, which ought to be closely examined.
      I shall vote for the total ban, as I have consistently done, and oppose the other two options. I hope that everyone on my side of the argument will do the same, because there is no middle way. In many ways, the debate is superfluous. We have been round this course time after time. Perhaps we could simply put the matter to the vote and go off and have a decent dinner. Unfortunately, that is not how these matters operate, so we shall just have to go through the motions yet again.

      379
      I am opposed to hunting and will support a total ban because, in the end, the issue is cruelty and nothing else. I was fascinated by that well-quoted euphemism from the Burns report, about the welfare of the fox being "seriously compromised". I recently made an involuntary contribution to the unofficial economy in my constituency—in other words, I was mugged. We should be very careful about the use of euphemisms. Hunting is about cruelty, which is why I shall vote for option 3.
      Mr. Hogg: It would be helpful if the hon. Gentleman said why it would be right to ban foxhunting on the ground of cruelty, but not to ban pheasant shooting and coarse fishing on the same ground.
      Mr. Banks: Exactly the same interventions and arguments are being made, and they will get exactly the same response that I gave when I was asked that question before. A line has to be drawn. There is a difference between angling and hunting foxes, or hare coursing: first, one does not hunt fish with dogs; and, secondly, a decent angler—there are some on this side of the argument; I used to call myself a very good angler—puts the fish back. The better the angler, the less the damage inflicted on the fish. I was a coarse fisherman—as you would expect, Mr. Lord—and I would often, on certain stretches of river and canal, catch the same creature.
      Mr. Hogg: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Banks: No, I shall not. That would just take up a lot of time. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is not going to convince me, and I am not going to convince him. I shall answer his question as I have answered those of other hon. Members—straightforwardly.
      Angling cannot be compared in any way with foxhunting. There is no intention on this side of the House, or in any of the organisations with which I am concerned, to move on to ban shooting or angling. The Prime Minister has said that, and if one cannot take that—
      Mrs. Llin Golding: It is not true.
      Mr. Banks: My hon. Friend says from a sedentary position that it is not true. I can tell her that I do not intend to get involved in a campaign to ban angling.
      Mr. Paice rose—
      Mr. Brian Sedgemorerose—
      Mr. Banks: I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman. I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore), who represents the rural confines of Hackney.
      Mr. Sedgemore: Is my hon. Friend aware that Quintin Hogg, the father of the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), wrote in "The Case for Conservatism":
      Conservatives do not believe that the political struggle is the most important thing in life … The simplest of them prefer foxhunting …
      Mr. Banks: Like father, like son, is all I can say to that.
      380
      One of the points that the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon would not accept is that the argument is not just about foxhunting. In many ways, we have allowed it to be hijacked by the Countryside Alliance and the media. How could anyone, particularly in the Middle Way Group, justify hare coursing? Hares are neither pests nor vermin. They are not vicious, wicked creatures, as has been said about foxes. Why on earth would anyone want to see a hare ripped to pieces for pleasure? I do not understand that—I cannot wrap my mind around it. Why does not the Middle Way Group have an alternative proposal on that issue? It does not even have an opinion on it. We need to remind people about that.
      Deer hunting is not mentioned much in these debates—nor is mink hunting. We are talking about cruelty to animals—
      Mr. Öpik rose—
      Mr. Banks: Patience.
      The debate is about cruelty to animals, not just about foxhunting.
      Mr. Öpik: As I have pointed out previously, the Middle Way Group has great concern about hare coursing and, at the prompting of the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice), we included it under the regulatory framework. The hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) will be aware that the secret of effective legislation is not to hide behind false certainties; it is to admit that there are difficult aspects, such as hare coursing, and to attempt to find an equitable solution. We do not claim that we have got it right, but we are at least trying to tackle the issue transparently and openly, and we invite feedback.
      Mr. Banks: I have previously said to the supporters of the so-called middle way that we cannot license cruelty—that is what their proposals would amount to. The idea that we should have a licensing regime for hare coursing is to perpetuate complete nonsense.
      The hon. Gentleman is right: there are problems. When the Bill goes into Standing Committee upstairs, the whole point of the proceedings will be to eliminate those problems—if, as I suspect, we vote for a complete ban. There are problems. Notwithstanding the obstructions that will, no doubt, be placed before us by Conservative Members or by pro-hunting members of the Committee, we shall have to try to answer serious questions about how the ban will be enforced. I admit that there are difficulties, but the Standing Committee must address those.
      Exactly the same arguments were made when the House debated bull baiting. George Canning was very much in favour of allowing bulls to be baited. It was argued that the pursuit was a sport; that it concerned the rights of minorities and of the individual; that the bull enjoyed it—[Laughter.] I do not tell a lie, Mr. Lord—would I do that in this place? The Official Report of the time stated that the bull enjoyed bull baiting and it was a good way of training dogs.
      We have heard the same arguments time after time. When we eventually get rid of these terrible blood sports—foxhunting, hare coursing, mink hunting and deer

      381
      hunting—people will read these debates and wonder why on earth these barbaric practices were propagated and supported.
      Mr. Owen Paterson: Instead of diverting the Committee with bygone days and the cruelties of the urban lower classes—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ooh!"]—would the hon. Gentleman address the question in the Bill as to why it is cruel to hunt a rabbit with a dog but not with a falcon?
      Mr. Banks: There are a number of reasons. One point about rabbit hunting is that, quite often, the rabbits get eaten—if not by dogs, by the people who shoot them. That argument is also made about pheasant shooting. I would not go shooting; it is one of the reasons that I am a vegetarian. If one had to kill one's own meat, many more people might convert to vegetarianism—[Interruption.] An hon. Member says that I would not kill a mosquito. I certainly would, because I have never understood why God's great vision of creation had to include mosquitos or wasps. But it did and I do not hesitate to kill them.
      Mr. Maples: Would the hon. Gentleman kill a rat?
      Mr. Banks: I do not want to make my speech too anecdotal, but my cat, Buzz, brought in a live rat the other night. My wife phoned me while I was in the House to ask me what to do about it and I told her to try to catch it. I got home late—as one does during this current period of modernisation in the House—to find that the cat had brought the rat back again. So I caught the rat alive, put in a tin and tipped it over to next door. I could not bring myself to kill the rat, although I was not prepared to offer it the hospitality of my home.
      Mr. David Taylor: Will my hon. Friend confirm to the Committee that he lives next door to the local Conservative club?
      Mr. Banks: The rats would have been coming over to my garden if that were the case. No, I do not confirm that; there are no Conservatives in my constituency—or very few.
      I was listening to a debate—[Interruption.] I think that that might be my mobile phone. I apologise, Mr. Lord; I forgot to turn it off.
      The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael Lord): I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his apology, because we take a very dim view of mobile phones in the Chamber. If Members cannot switch off their phones, they should leave them outside.
      Mr. Banks: I can switch off my phone. I inadvertently forgot to do so, but I have done so now, Mr. Lord. Perhaps my neighbours were trying to phone me, having just heard that I put a rat over their fence.
      I listened to a series of items on the "Today" programme, and I was moved to complain to its duty producer because I thought that the issue was handled disgracefully. The programme started at 7 o'clock with an
      382
      interview from the west country, where a cub reporter was sent to ask patsy questions such as, "Isn't it horrible that these horrible people are doing horrible things?" An individual hunt supporter was interviewed and said, "This is only about animal welfare. It is as simple as that." She said that 20,000 hounds will be killed if the Bill is passed. She used the euphemism, "put to sleep." Why should those animals be killed?
      We know that the hunts kill their own animals at the age of five to six because they are not fast enough to keep up with the horses. They kill puppies if they do not show a proclivity for hunting and slaughtering foxes. The nature of those animals is being distorted by the way that the hunts train them to hunt and kill. If that is not a perversion of nature or of the character of noble creatures, I do not know what is. Such things have to be borne in mind.
      The hon. Member for Stratford—on—Avon may be interested to know that the animal welfare organisations can find homes for those 20,000 dogs. I am certain of that. The sabs managed to hide 46 beagles the other day, and no one has found out where they have gone. I do not approve of that action, but 46 beagles managed to disappear, so I am sure that decent hunt members who love animals will be prepared to house those dogs, and other people who low animals will do likewise. However, if people go over to drag hunting, they will not have to kill any of those dogs.
      Mr. Maples: Finding homes for those animals will be much more difficult than the hon. Gentleman thinks—if not impossible. Can he give the House the assurance, which I sought front the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Mr. Cawsey), that he and Buzz will be prepared to share their home with a foxhound?
      Mr. Banks: I will consult my two cats, but I doubt whether they will be prepared to live with a dog. I would love to have a dog, but the life style of Members of Parliament, especially if one is an assiduous Member, is not conducive to keeping dogs in an urban area. That is one of the problems Perhaps I could take a few dogs when I move to a more rural area. I would love to do so because they make wonderful companions.
      To return to the "Today" programme, the subsequent interview was with Lord Mancroft, who showed total contempt in his approach to the will of the House, the suggestion being the t whatever we did was irrelevant because the other place will ensure that the Bill goes nowhere. My colleagues on the Front Bench should think about that, because we are the elected Chamber; we represent the majority view, both in rural and urban areas, not those at the other end of the Palace. Frankly, the comments that were made on the programme this morning were disgraceful, but least Lord Mancroft has given notice of what we are likely to face when the Bill leaves the House with a total ban in place. I hope that those on the Front Bench will put such a ban in the manifesto and be prepared to implement the Parliament Acts when, I hope, a Labour Government are returned after the next general election.
      Mr. Hancock: I should like to return to the point that the hon. Gentleman made about the way in which hunts look after hounds. He may be interested to know that the New Forest hunt has been manifestly more successful in

      383
      killing its own hounds during meets than it has in catching foxes. It has killed twice as many of its own hounds as it has foxes during the past 26 meets.
      Mr. Banks: That does not surprise me. The idea that hunt members are kind to their dogs is nonsense. The evidence reflects that. We know how they get killed and maimed, and are put down when they are not good enough or fast enough to keep up with the hunt.
      5.30 pm
      On the "Today" programme, Mr. Naughtie, who is generally a decent fellow, said to, I think, Lord Mancroft, "Don't the people who hate hunting really hate people like you? Isn't that the gist of it? Isn't that what it's really about?" Several Conservative Members nod in agreement, but it is not about us personally hating people who hunt, but about personally hating hunting. I am sure that some pretty unpleasant people are pro-hunting, but there are probably some pretty unpleasant people who are anti-hunting. We do not legislate on the basis of whether we like people. If we did—my God—we would be working here non-stop, 365 days a year. There are an awful lot of people I do not like, but they are not all hunters.
      The hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) is no longer present—it is about half-past five, so it is an early dinner call—but how could anyone hate him? Yet he is passionately pro-hunting, though not himself a hunter—a horse could not be found that was stout enough for him, and shire horses, although stout, are not fast enough. He gives us hours of harmless fun in the Chamber and elsewhere. I confessed in an earlier debate to loving him in—I repeat—a non-erotic way.
      The hon. Gentleman was not always against change in the countryside. When he was an Agriculture Minister, he said:
      The countryside cannot be preserved in aspic,
      to which I said:
      If it were you would eat it!—[Official Report, 3 December 1992; Vol. 215, c. 382.]
      He certainly recognised that change comes about, and we will ensure that this change happens tonight.
      This is not a class issue, and it insults our intelligence, principles and positions to say that t is. There used to be hunts in mining communities. Hare coursing is not a class issue, and I was as bitterly opposed to that practice as I am to foxhunting. Cruelty to animals is my only motivation.
      As for the middle way, I checked the Division list and do not understand why its three main protagonists voted against Second Reading. Had they succeeded, we would never have been able to consider their nonsense alternative. What will they do tonight when we vote on the first option? If they support it, they will lose the middle way option. They are deceiving themselves and are trying to deceive the rest of us. When I consider their arguments, I realise that they are just apologists for hunting. That is all they are.
      Quite frankly, their arguments will be rejected by anyone who understands the issue end by the country at large—as, indeed, they have been rejected by people who are in favour of keeping hunting more or less as it is in option 1, which allows for self-regulation, and by the Countryside Alliance. I am sure that we shall vote against
      384
      the middle way option. Let us get rid of that nonsense and apply ourselves to putting through and making work what the House and the country want—a total ban on hunting.
      Mr. Norman Baker: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks). The gain for the Back Benches is the loss of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, where he was the Minister for Sport—although definitely not the Minister for bloodsports.
      Since my election as a Member of Parliament in 1997, I have received more correspondence on hunting than on any other issue, and that has continued over the past week or so. The representations have been both for and against hunting. It is clearly an important issue to the constituents of all Members of Parliament, whatever their particular view. It might also be significant to members of the public because we have a free vote, which gives us the opportunity for once to act without the guidance of Whips. Under those circumstances, the vote might be more real than would otherwise be the case. Because the issue is of concern to the public at large and because we are to have a free vote in which Members' votes will count, the onus is on us all to consider the issue properly and to reach a sensible conclusion that will satisfy our integrity.
      The Liberal Democrat party is no different from the Conservative party and the Labour party in the sense that we have proponents of all three options sitting on our Benches. It is right that we should do so and right that Members should be able to express different opinions. When the Liberal Democrats discussed the issue at our conference, a majority of delegates were in favour of a complete ban. However, it has always been understood, in the House and elsewhere that we, like the other two parties, will not have a whipped vote on this issue. It is regarded as a matter of conscience.
      I support the third option, but I wish to express my cynicism about the timing of the Bill's introduction. There has been a great clamour for legislation on hunting since before the last general election. The implication in the Labour party's manifesto was that legislation would be introduced early, but we had to rely on the courage of the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster) to introduce a private Member's Bill. There was a huge vote in the House in favour of a ban, but the Government took no action. They may be acting now only because the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) encouraged them to do so by the amendments that he tabled to other legislation.
      Most Members recognise that—whether people are in favour of or against the Bill—it is unlikely to reach the statute book before the next election. We must therefore ask why the Bill has been introduced at this time. Its introduction is gesture politics, and I am sorry to say that because I strongly support the third option. It is almost an abuse of the House to introduce the Bill knowing that it cannot become law before the general election. It has been introduced not for animal welfare reasons but for reasons of low politics.
      However, it is up to each Member to assess the Bill and to reach his or her own conclusions. Like other Members, I have tried to do that honestly and I have applied a personal sequential test to determine my conclusions. I start from the premise from which many other people start. It is wrong to ban things unless there is a very good reason to do so. We simply cannot go round banning everything that we may not happen to like.

      385
      The test is whether the damage or harm caused by not banning something is greater than the loss of freedom that will result from a ban. I am convinced that that test is met in this case. Anyone who has seen the evidence of what happens to foxes and hares—hon. Members have been right to make the point about hares—cannot be in any doubt about the barbarity of the hunt and its consequences for the animals involved. It is indefensible to say that hunting should be allowed to continue. In some ways, it is even more indefensible to suggest that it should be licensed.
      Sir Nicholas Lyell: The hon. Gentleman is dealing with the issue of cruelty and saying that hunting is barbaric. Many hon. Members hoped that the Burns report would say the same, but it did not say anything of the kind, and nor did the Scott Henderson report under Mr. Attlee's Government. Should the hon. Gentleman not consider the objective view of independent people before he calls for the removal of the rights of tens of thousands of people?
      Mr. Baker: The Burns inquiry's terms of reference did not ask it to ascertain whether hunting was barbaric, but the report made it clear that hunting compromised the welfare of the fox. As the hon. Member for West Ham suggested, other methods of dealing with foxes are less invidious.
      It has long been established in society that it is right to take into account the impact of humans on animals in deciding whether to legislate. For example, many years ago, we decided as a society to outlaw bear baiting and cock fighting, because they were deemed to be unacceptable sports. Foxhunting and hare coursing are similar in that regard. The principle has been established that, if animal welfare is compromised to such a degree, it is justifiable for a human freedom to be removed.
      Mr. David Taylor: I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman's unremitting campaign on animal welfare during this Parliament. Does he agree, however, with the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples), who has now left the Chamber, that on the spectrum of animal cruelty in our society there are many activities that inflict much greater harm than hunting, including the killing of 4 million animals in experimentation and the breeding of 800 million broiler chickens in unimaginable circumstances of dire cruelty?
      Mr. Baker: Of course I share the hon. Gentleman's concern about the way in which animals are treated in vivisection laboratories and in some aspects of farming. Sadly, however, we are not faced with a protection of animals Bill that would deal with all those matters in a unified way across Departments. The Bill before us deals with a relatively narrow aspect and we must address ourselves to that rather than to what we would like to see in legislation. I would like wider legislation, and I can press for it, but we are not dealing with that today.
      My conclusion was that preventing the suffering of animals outweighed the human freedom that the Bill would remove. I asked myself whether there are offsetting factors that suggest that hunting should be allowed to
      386
      continue. The issue of employment has been raised by people in rural areas, not least by those in my constituency, and I am concerned about it. The Burns report said that the number of people whose jobs would be affected had been considerably overestimated by the Countryside Alliance but that is not to say that nobody will be affected, and we should take account of those people in our formulations.
      The second factor is whether the impact on the social structure and on people's way of life is such that, notwithstanding the impact of hunting on animals, it is right to protect it because it is so important to those people. I understand that the hunt is the centre of some people's social activities, and that will be removed if the third option becomes law. I will be sorry if that social structure is removed, but the arguments in its favour do not justify cruelty to animals. However, no one has mentioned drag hunting today, and there is no reason why members of a social structure who want to come together to hunt and to go through the associated rituals, such as drinking from the stirrup cup, should not continue to do so. No one is suggesting that such activity should be outlawed; we can have the spectacle without the death. That is a reasonable way to proceed.
      Mr. Öpik: To return to the argument about cruelty versus civil liberties, is my hon. Friend rejecting Lord Burns's assessment that in at least some areas, such as upland Wales, hunting with dogs is an acceptable, and probably the most effective, way of controlling the numbers of foxes?
      Mr. Baker: My point was about cruelty, and my hon. Friend's point is about control, a matter to which I now turn. I visited my local hunt kennels to talk to the people there. They told me that they catch about 50 foxes a year, which may be an optimistic figure. That would make very little impact on the fox population locally, and we know that nationally only about 5 per cent. of foxes are dealt with by hunts.
      Members of the hunt often say to me that they are maintaining the fox population by removing the weakest of the species, so we should be grateful to them. At other times they say that they are removing a pest that causes massive damage. Those two arguments are contradictory, and need to be made clearer. I do not believe that killing 5 per cent. of foxes nationally or 50 foxes in my constituency makes much difference to the number of foxes. The argument about control is a bit of a red herring.
      Returning to my hon. Friend's point, there are areas where the argument for control is stronger. That brings me on to the Welsh Assembly and the amendment tabled by Plaid Cymru Members. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where are they?"] They are not present, although I am sure they are watching the debate on the screens in their offices. It is perfectly proper for the Welsh Assembly to take a view on the matter, and I am uncomfortable about this House deciding for Wales what should happen in the uplands. I hope that the Government will accept the amendment.
      5.45 pm
      Mr. Alun Michael: The hon. Gentleman misunderstands the devolution settlement. There is plenty of opportunity for Members of the Welsh Assembly and the Assembly as whole to reach

      387
      a view, but it is for this House to take the decision. Indeed, the Assembly Member who represents my constituency has expressed a strong wish that the House should take the decision in a way that makes sense in both England and Wales. Yes, we should listen, but that is different from trying to abrogate responsibility in respect of Wales.
      Mr. Baker: I do understand the settlement. However, I suggest first, that the House can, It any time, move on or take a different view if it wants to; and secondly, that that might be appropriate in the current case. If the House passes the amendment, it would be entirely proper for the House to take a view on whether the settlement should revisited in that respect.
      Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman has said, and I agree, that we should be careful about legislating for the Welsh uplands. Does he agree that, by the same argument, Members representing Scottish constituencies should not vote on the Bill, which does not apply to their constituencies, but applies exclusively to England and Wales?
      Mr. Baker: I am being tempted down a constitutional road that I prefer not to take. I have dealt with the Welsh point as best I can. The Minister answered the point fully and satisfactorily and I should prefer not to delay the Committee by dwelling on it.
      Mr. Hancock: is my hon. Friend saying that voting for the proposal tabled by our colleagues from Wales is acceptable to him, and that, although he opposes hunting because it is cruel, he is prepared to see the Welsh allow hunting to continue if their Assembly votes for it? I cannot understand his argument. We have a chance to get rid of hunting in England and Wales, which is what we all want to happen.
      Mr. Baker: I make no secret of the fact that I should like hunting to be banned in Wales and everywhere else in the world if possible, but I recognise that devolution is with us. It is entirely proper that people should be responsible for activities carried out in their own area—and not the House, not the Committee, not any hon. Member nor I should try to impose our views on our colleagues in Wales.
      We have two substantive options, both of which are intellectually honest; both are held with fervour, and I understand why. One is that hunting should be banned and the other is that it should be allowed to continue. Those are the only options before us today, because, with all due respect to my colleagues, there is no middle way. I am not knocking those proposals—that has been done by others and people can make up their own minds. I think that the proposals are a little threadbare in places, but that is not for me to say. I think that the middle way is a bit of spin—there is no middle way. The proposals might be justified, but they are merely a variation of the option to allow hunting to continue. The choice before us today is between one option to ban hunting and two to keep it. There can be no middle way on matters of principle such as hunting.
      I did not manage to intervene on the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington), who has now left the Chamber. He, rightly, condemns those who have broken the law and behaved in a criminal manner towards those
      388
      who are engaged in a currently lawful activity, namely, hunting. I do not condone breaking the law to disrupt an activity that remains legal. However, the hon. Gentleman, the Conservative party and others who are in favour of hunting must also condemn those who make remarks of the sort that I heard on "Farming Today" early this morning: that they are hunting now and that, if hunting is banned, they will continue to do so. They argue that it is entirely wrong for those who oppose hunting to break the law as it stands, but that it would be perfectly legitimate for them to break the law if hunting were banned. Their position would be stronger if they pledged to uphold the law both before and after the Bill has been passed.
      As for the House of Lords, ours is the elected Chamber. The House has already voted once, by a very large margin, to ban hunting, and unless I am greatly mistaken, it will do so again tonight. It is improper for an unelected House—marginally reformed or not—to try to dictate to our Chamber and tell us what to do during a free vote. I hope that their lordships will think carefully before attempting to interfere with votes in the House of Commons.
      Mr. Caplin: I enjoyed the speech of the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker). I did not understand some of it—particularly his logic, to which the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) drew attention.
      I spoke in the debate on 7 July on the Burns report. It was a good and constructive debate. For me, the Burns report has clarified two important issues. The first is whether foxhunting is a pest-control issue and the second is about economics, to which the Countryside Alliance has drawn attention on so many occasions. I felt that it was concluded by some that on pest control the Burns report was pretty straight but did not take us forward. The report arrives at the conclusion that foxhunting does not contribute to the control of foxes, and I agree.
      Much more important, on the economics of the issue the Burns report torpedoes the arguments that the Countryside Alliance has had us thinking about. In the Committee on which I was pleased to serve and which considered the Wild Mammals (Hunting with Dogs) Bill, introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster) in 1997–98, we heard time and again from hon. Members, some of whom are in the Chamber, about job losses. They were always saying that there would be 16,000 jobs lost, whereas the Burns report refers to 700 or 800 directly related jobs being lost. That is fundamental to the debate.
      Mr. Gray rose—
      Mr. Caplin: I thought that would enlighten the hon. Gentleman.
      Mr. Gray: I, too, served on the Committee that considered the Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster), and we talked a great deal about jobs. Lord Burns concludes that about 7,500 full-time equivalent jobs will be lost, in addition to many part-time and associated jobs. By any standards, the arithmetic produces a total of about 12,000 to 13,000 jobs. That is slightly short of 15,000, the figure which I used repeatedly

      389
      in Committee. Job losses will be of the order of 10,000 to 15,000. The arithmetic can be sorted out; to talk about 750 job losses is blatantly misleading.
      Mr. Caplin: I have enjoyed these debates for the past four years. I shall give the hon. Gentleman a quotation. The Burns report states that in the short term as few as 700 jobs and a proportion of about 1,500 direct equivalent jobs are supported by hunt-related activities. There will not be 16,000 job losses. The figure is quite clear, and one that it is difficult for the House to ignore.
      The purpose of the Committee is to scrutinise each of the three proposals. I shall start in the middle. For some time I have been thinking, "What is the middle way, about which we have heard so much?" Three Members, one from each of the major parties, have put it together. I thought that perhaps they had a case. Perhaps I should give them the opportunity to state it; perhaps they want to state their case. However, they failed because they all voted against giving the Bill a Second Reading. At that moment they ceased to have the right to put their case. They did not want the debate to take place today. The position of the hon. Member for Lewes—I find myself in agreement with the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) on this—is that there are only two legitimate positions. The first is to continue hunting, which many Members who served on the Standing Committee during 1997–98 wanted, and the second is an outright ban. Those are the only two legitimate positions that are credible.
      Mr. Öpik: I am trying to understand the hon. Gentleman's logic in being concerned about me and two others voting against Second Reading, and why that makes him sceptical about the content of clause 2. I shall be interested to hear why specifically the hon. Gentleman thinks that clause 2 is an ineffective proposition.
      Mr. Caplin: I am happy for the hon. Gentleman to intervene as often as he likes to tell me why he, my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding) and the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) voted as they did on Second Reading, which was to facilitate the current debate. They voted to stop us having this debate. If the hon. Gentleman wants to tell us, we shall all be interested.
      Mr. Öpik: There is no secret. We stated at the beginning of the day that, subject to there being a genuine debate on Second Reading, when hon. Members on both sides of the House were present to listen and apparently to be guided by the quality of discussion, we would vote in favour. I promise the hon. Gentleman that we meant that sincerely. At one point during that debate there were 24 Members in the Chamber, and at no point were more than a quarter of all hon. Members present. We thus expressed the objection that we stated clearly on the morning of that debate. If the hon. Gentleman has a different view, I respect that, but I hope that at least he recognises that we were expressing an objection on the basis of principle.
      Mr. Caplin: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that apparent explanation. I cannot find in Hansard what
      390
      the hon. Gentleman describes. He can try to refer to a column, but he will not find it. The vote of the hon. Gentleman, of my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme and of the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire against Second Reading showed that they did not want this debate. The middle way is just another version of foxhunting.
      Mr. Bercow: I understand the vantage point from which the hon. Gentleman is approaching the issue. I richly enjoyed the speech of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard). I do not want to cavil—I respect the good intentions of the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik)—but I put it to the hon. Gentleman that there is an important difference between legitimacy and credibility. Will the hon. Gentleman take it from me that while there are, in my view, only two credible positions—the status quo or a ban—it is wrong to suggest that an honourably held view in support of the middle way is somehow illegitimate? It is incredible, but it is not illegitimate.
      Mr. Caplin: I am not sure that I said it was incredible.
      Mr. Bercow: The hon. Gentleman said that it was illegitimate.
      Mr. Caplin: I meant to say that it was incredible.
      I do not understand how we can have two options to maintain hunting and one option to ban it, but that is what we are talking about. The middle way would not ban hunting. When I conclude my remarks, I hope to have explained to the House why there should be a total ban on hunting. That is where I am coming from.
      Despite what has been said by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik), I still cannot understand why he, my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme and the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire voted against Second Reading. Once the Bill had received a Second Reading, we were allowed to have today's debate and to take matters forward. I understand the position of the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow). I also understand that of the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), who served on the Standing Committee that considered the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester and who supported us. I understand the position of both the hon. Member and the right hon. Member. However, I do not understand why the Middle Way Group voted against Second Reading, which facilitated the debate. I think that that makes the group's position incredible.
      Mr. Öpik: I happen to have the relevant Hansard. I said:
      To have an opinion, one must listen to the debate and know what people have said. Few of the hon. Members who will vote on the Second Reading have stayed in the Chamber for much of the debate. At one point, the number in here went down to 25.
      I finished by saying:
      The Middle Way Group wants, more than anything else, to have a rational, wide-ranging debate in which the hon. Members who go through the Lobby—whether they are for or against the Bill—

      391
      at least do so having heard the debate. That does not happen if hon. Members do not turn up.—[Official Report, 20 December 2000; Vol. 360, c. 454.].
      Mr. Caplin: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that contribution and clarification. I am not questioning what he said. Instead, I am questioning what he and his temporary hon. Friends, whatever they want to be called, actually did. In effect, they voted against the continuation of the debate in this place and outside.
      Mr. John McFall: I am trying to understand the logic of the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik). I still cannot understand why he voted against the Bill on Second Reading. In the past, the hon. Gentleman has been helpful in his comments about the Government's position on Northern Ireland. I have been in the Chamber when there have been two or three Labour Members and only one Opposition Member, but we have passed legislation. The idea that the hon. Gentleman needs a certain quorum in the House is not acceptable. I think that he needs another reason. Will he comment?
      Mr. Caplin: If I give the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire any more opportunities, he will be hanging himself, and we do not believe in capital punishment.
      Mr. Luff rose—
      Mr. Caplin: I shall try the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire who has just returned to the Chamber.
      Mr. Luff: I apologise for not being present; I was serving on a Standing Committee. The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) has a point because it was a difficult decision. I know that it is unusual in the House, but I shall be honest with the hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Caplin). We took the view that to vote for the Bill would be seen by the outside world as a vote against hunting. I make no secret of the fact that I want to retain hunting. A decision was made on the perception of the vote by the outside world. I agree that the intellectual arguments were in favour of casting a vote for the Bill. It was a difficult decision, but I still think that I made the right one.
      6 pm
      Mr. Caplin: We have finally flushed them out. I have made my point and that is the purpose of the Committee stage. We are properly scrutinising the middle way to determine whether it is a legitimate and credible way to take foxhunting forward. I have not been convinced by any of the arguments that I have heard.
      I have faced the Countryside Alliance on a number of occasions.
      Mr. Bercow: A fine body of men and women.
      Mr. Caplin: They are only men, that is true. In particular, I have seen the Countryside Alliance's performances at Bournemouth, and more recently on the streets of Brighton and Hove during the Labour party conference, which, frankly, were disgraceful. I have asked
      392
      the Countryside Alliance why, if it is so concerned about the issue and thinks that it is one about which people are worried, it does not do the democratic thing and put up candidates. It could put up 600 candidates throughout the United Kingdom at the next general election. Let us have some Countryside Alliance candidates. I am sure that the Conservative party would welcome the good democratic debate that that would result in. Talking of which—
      Mr. John Hayes: Is the hon. Gentleman seriously telling the House that, in a democracy, the only means of expressing an opinion is to stand for election? There are pressure groups and organisations of every type, fashion and fad, many of them on the left, but they do not all put forward candidates for election. The Countryside Alliance, like every other group, has every right to put its view in a democratic, fair and open way. It ill befits the hon. Gentleman to say that, because it has not proposed candidates for election, it is not a democratic organisation representing the views of many people in Britain.
      Mr. Caplin: I have heard some spinning, but that takes some beating. If the Countryside Alliance wants to take part in our democratic process, I am inviting it to put forward candidates for election. Of course there are other ways in a democracy to put forward views, whether they are those of pressure groups or of the Countryside Alliance, representatives of which I have seen at my surgery. I do not understand where the hon. Gentleman is coming from. I simply advise the alliance that, if it wants to be involved in the democratic process, it should put forward candidates at elections.
      Mr. Hogg: The Countryside Alliance is involved in the democratic process. In many Conservative-controlled constituencies, it strongly supports the Conservative Members who defend hunting. That is to participate in democracy in Britain.
      Mr. Caplin rose—
      The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. Before the hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Caplin) responds to that intervention, I should like to bring him back to the clause.
      Mr. Caplin: Perhaps, in response, I could be allowed to say that I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his response, which was illuminating.
      Mr. McFall: I agree with the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) regarding the Countryside Alliance. One of the issues that should be nailed is that the Countryside Alliance is representative of the whole community. Bob Worcester has undertaken a MORI poll, so we have a ready democratic ear which shows the voting intentions of the Countryside Alliance to be 79 per cent. Conservative, 7 per cent. Labour and 10 per cent. Liberal Democrat.
      The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. I have just said that I should be grateful if hon. Members would not go down that road.
      Mr. Caplin: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point about people's current intentions.

      393
      It has been alleged that the Bill presages a move to ban shooting and angling. I would not support such a move. I have been involved in animal welfare campaigns since I have been involved in politics, which is some time now, and I would not support a move to ban shooting or fishing, as some hon. Members and as some in the Countryside Alliance suggest might happen. That is a red herring to distract us from the fundamental nature of this important debate.
      Mr. Hayes: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for being so generous as to give way a second time. He said that he is against any move to ban shooting, and at the beginning of his speech he referred to foxhunting as an ineffective means of controlling pests. If foxhunting is an ineffective and not sufficiently ruthless means of controlling a pest, and if he wants to exterminate the British fox population, what means of control does he advocate or recommend?
      Mr. Caplin: I made it clear that I supported Lord Burns's conclusions on pest control. I refer the hon. Gentleman to page 89, the relevant quotation from which also appears in my previous speech on the issue at column 548 of Hansard on 7 July.
      Mr. Bercow: Read it out.
      Mr. Caplin: The hon. Gentleman can read it for himself.
      I come now to why people should vote for the third option. I have said that there are only two options on which the Committee should vote—either to support hunting, in which case one votes for option 1, or to ban hunting, which means option 3. No other option is worthy of further consideration, and I hope that the House will reflect on that.
      My decision is based on two points. First, during the election campaign, like my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester I made a clear commitment to my electors that, if the opportunity arose, I would vote to ban hunting. When my hon. Friend provided the opportunity I fulfilled that promise, but I was still prepared to say that I would continue to consider the issues, and that is why I made a contribution to the debate on the Burns report. I read the report at least twice and considered the issues, but I still came to the conclusion that the only option is to ban hunting. I came to that conclusion not just because of what I said before the election but, quite simply, because foxhunting, deer hunting and hare coursing are cruel.
      I end by telling the House of something which occurred in Sussex over the past few days. Last Saturday, monitors attending the Chiddingfold, Leconfield and Cowdray foxhounds found a fox on which a preliminary report was made before it was passed on to a local veterinary practice for analysis. The preliminary findings state that the
      post mortem findings support the conclusion that [the fox] was initially caught by the hind legs. The animal was probably then caught by other dogs that delivered massive bite injuries to the chest and abdomen.
      The report continues:
      The massive bruising and haemorrhage around the chest and abdominal wounds suggest that this damage occurred before death.
      394
      That is that type of cruelty that I want to see ended in Britain. That is why tonight I shall be voting no, no, yes, for an end to cruelty.
      Mr. Tony Baldry: We must all recognise that hon. Members on both sides of the argument come to the debate with genuine and heartfelt convictions. Unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples), I am not optimistic that I shall persuade anyone to change their views. However, I want to try to express, I suspect rather inadequately, some of the feelings that exist in the countryside and voices that should be heard here, and some, I suspect, rather inconvenient views, because this is not an entirely logical debate.
      I start from this premise. My maternal grandfather and great grandfather were gamekeepers. My great grandfather was gamekeeper to one of my predecessors as Member of Parliament for Banbury. As a Scot, he might have been rather surprised that, although the legislation does not apply to Scotland, Scottish Members of Parliament from Aberdeenshire, whence he came, are entitled to vote on it—but that is another matter.
      What I learned from my grandfather and saw as an Agriculture Minister and in my time as a Member of Parliament representing a partly rural constituency, is that, for gamekeepers, farmers and everyone involved in the countryside to succeed, they must be in complete harmony with the countryside. Hunting has been part of the tapestry of English rural life that has evolved over centuries. If one looks at the countryside of Oxfordshire, whether Roman roads or fields made up following the Enclosure Acts, one can see that the landscape partly comes about from the coverts, hedgerows and fences established as a result of hunting. Whether hon. Members like it or not, part of the tapestry of the countryside has come about because of field sports.
      If hunting is banned, that tapestry will be lost. Part of the harmony of the countryside will be irretrievably lost, and it will alter. I hope that Government Members accept that if hunting is banned, we will not have a Milly-Molly-Mandy or anthropomorphic Beatrix Potter existence, and we will not have "The Fantastic Mr. Fox" of Roald Dahl. I suspect that, in constituencies such as mine, we shall see the emergence of men in vans late at night with spades, shovels and shotguns controlling foxes. At present, we have a perfectly responsible community of farmers and others who, through the hunts, control the fox population within agricultural and farming areas.
      The other thing that has not been fully explained in our debate—although my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon tried—is the fact that this is not a division between town and country; people are not trying to set one against the other. However, hon. Members must try to understand that many people in the countryside genuinely feel that they are being misunderstood and their voice is not being heard. They feel beleaguered, not just in relation to hunting and field sports, but in many other ways, and believe that their way of life is threatened. They are otherwise law-abiding citizens who go about earning a living and making a full contribution to the community, and they cannot understand why what they perceive as urban values will be imposed on them.
      I cannot think of an equivalent example in living memory in which the House has sought to impose urban or other values on a law-abiding community in that way.

      395
      I understand that some hon. Members come to the issue from an animal welfare viewpoint, and I have listened to their arguments. I also listened to arguments that were made when I was a member of the Standing Committee considering the Wild Mammals (Hunting with Dogs) Bill. However, hon. Members must understand that literally hundreds of thousands of our fellow citizens in the countryside live in harmony with nature and are much closer to nature, day to day, than, with due respect, the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) or others. People in the countryside feel that an alien imposition is about to be forced on them by the House.
      Mr. David Taylor: I have lived in a village in the Atherstone hunt territory all my life, and there is not quite the divide that the hon. Gentleman is suggesting in the attitudes of urban and rural residents. I conducted a large-scale survey in my constituency, with a response rate approaching 50 per cent, which shows that there is a majority for the third option presented to us tonight, albeit much smaller than was the case at the time of the Wild Mammals (Hunting with Dogs) Bill in November 1997. Twenty-five per cent. have peeled away into the middle way. The gap between urban and rural attitudes is not all that substantial or significant.
      Mr. Baldry: The hon. Gentleman must be entirely insensitive to the sort of countryside march that took place not so long ago during the time of that earlier Bill. I am quite sure that on 18 March we shall probably see nearly 1 million people marching through London to express their concerns.
      6.15 pm
      The point that I am trying to make is that we should not be insensitive to the views of many of our fellow citizens. There has been a tendency in today's debate and in previous debates to think that the measure can be introduced without deep concerns and a deep sense of hurt in a large part of the rural community, which feels that it is being misunderstood and that its voice is not being heard.
      Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend said, correctly, that there is a deep sense of hurt in the countryside and a feeling that the values of people there are not understood. Is that not aggravated by the fact that the constituents to whom he referred see when we debate other issues, such as abortion, where serious ethical questions are raised, and homosexuality, especially relating to persons over 16 and under 18, that those issues are left to the individual to decide, and criminal law—propel in my view—is excluded from those areas?
      Mr. Baldry: May I pick up from my right hon. and learned Friend's intervention the point with which I shall conclude?
      The Committee must accept that we are seeking to criminalise an activity that has been perfectly legal for centuries. When people are asked if they support field sports—I am referring to the intervention of the hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire (Mr. Taylor) —they may well say that they are not particularly keen on them.
      Mr. McFall rose—
      Mr. Baldry: However, when one asks those people whether they think an activity that has been lawful for a long time should be made criminal, attracting criminal sanctions, one gets a completely different view.
      Mr. McFall rose—
      Mr. Baldry: I am amazed at the audacity of the hon. Gentleman, who represents a Scottish constituency, in continuing to seek to intervene in an English debate. However, that is another matter.
      I hope that those who are in favour of a total ban will recognise that hundreds of thousands of their fellow citizens who, for centuries, have lawfully pursued an activity in harmony with the countryside, feel that we are simply not listening to their voice.
      I very much hope that as the Bill makes progress between now and the general election—and probably beyond—all hon. Members will take the opportunity to listen to the countryside, so that the sense of hurt felt by people there does not become a real division in our country.
      Mrs. Eileen Gordon: I shall restrict my remarks to clause 3. We are discussing three options tonight, and I am listening to the debate, but as far as I am concerned there is only one option: a total ban.
      As my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) said, we have discussed this issue many times in the House and have rehearsed the arguments over and over again. We could say, "Been there, done that and watched the video." Ever since I have known about hunting and understood the issues involved in it, I have detested it and thought it barbaric. The volume of letters that I receive from my constituents supporting my opinion confirms, rather than forms, that view.
      Mr. Baker: Does the hon. Lady agree that this does not involve a split between rural and urban areas? In my constituency, as many people are for the measure as are against, whether they are in towns or the countryside. This is not about the countryside versus the towns, but about different opinions, wherever people live.
      Mrs. Gordon: Absolutely. I shall go on to speak about that later.
      We have had discussions about pest control and have heard what a wonderful example of country life hunting is. I want to concentrate for a few moments on a type of hunting that cannot even pretend to have an excuse: hare coursing. One cannot cry pest control, because the hare is already threatened. The hare population is about 20 per cent. of what it was 100 years ago. Changes in farming methods have led to a decline in the population. In some areas, hares are netted and transported specifically for coursing.
      The Waterloo cup is the epitome of everything that I detest about hunting. Hares are beaten out of the long grass and then chased by two greyhounds. When a hare is caught, it is ripped to pieces. An RSPCA inspector who attended hare coursing under cover—he was fearful for his safety—and witnessed many kills described the end of the hare in the following terms:
      If both dogs catch the hare, one gets hold of head and the other grabs the back end and they will play tug 'o' war with it. The officials do run as fast as they can to get hold of the injured hare

      397
      and kill it to prevent further suffering. But they can take up to 30 seconds, which might not sound a lot, but it is when you are being pulled to pieces.
      The Waterloo cup attracts up to 10,000 people over three days. It is a spectacle that people enjoy, but I think that it is obscene.
      I do not know whether it is possible for people who enjoy the kill to take part in an alternative sport. In Romford, we have an alternative to hare coursing. Our greyhound stadium employs more than 300 people and has a turnover of more than £1 million a year. About 250,000 people visit the stadium each year. It is possible to provide pleasure without cruelty, and betting without blood. People who go greyhound racing enjoy themselves without having to kill the animals at the end of it. I do not know whether it is possible for those who enjoy the kill to take part in drag hunting, but I believe that there are many thousands of people who would in participate in such activity even though they would not dream of taking part in a hunt.
      Mr. Hogg: Is the hon. Lady saying to people who like game shooting that they should confine their activities to clay pigeon shooting? Is she telling those who like angling that they should confine their activities to fishing for corks? If she is not saying that, why does she distinguish between those sports and foxhunting?
      Mrs. Gordon: The right hon. and learned Gentleman seems to be obsessed with shooting and fishing, but I cannot see those activities in the Bill. If he does not mind, I shall stick to the provisions about which I am talking.
      Many people enjoy riding. The hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples) said that his daughter will now be unable to ride, as she cannot go hunting. I suggest to him that people who do not kill animals, perhaps because they detest the kill, can still ride and enjoy the countryside, as well as the challenge of the drag hunt. I wish that rural people who oppose hunting would sometimes view the introduction of a ban as an opportunity to increase sport and economic activity in the countryside. Perhaps that view is in the realms of fantasy, but, as the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) suggested, many people who live in the countryside would welcome a ban on hunting—
      Mr. Hayes: Will the hon. Lady give way?
      Mrs. Gordon: I should like to make progress; my speech is very short.
      Many people in the countryside would like a ban and would welcome drag hunting as it would remove the unpredictability of the hunt. For instance, it would prevent the trampling of their farms, gardens and even school playgrounds—there are recorded examples of that. The writer of a letter published in The Daily Telegraph on 3 April 1998 stated:
      Most foxhunters I know regard Draghunting as similar to paying for sex—it lacks the uncertainty of the chase.
      That is basically what hunters enjoy: the frisson of the kill.
      It is said that there is a time and place for everything. This is the time and place to ban hunting with dogs once and for all.
      Mr. Lembit Öpik: Three years ago, a small number of Members of Parliament felt that neither a ban on hunting with dogs nor the status quo fairly balanced the values of animal welfare and civil liberties. Those hon. Members established the Middle Way Group. I know, because I was there, and was one of them, together with the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding), the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster) and, at that time, the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey), the Minister for Sport. Interestingly, in the three years since the Middle Way Group was set up, it has been described as a Trojan horse by both of the other lobbies represented in this debate. However, here we stand with a proposal that seems increasingly to resonate with the popular view of the public on hunting.
      In December, Channel 4's "Powerhouse" programme conducted an independent NOP poll, which suggested that 48 per cent. of the public supported a ban and that 52 per cent. supported either regulation or supervision. That was a profound change, as it had previously appeared on regular occasions that the ban was supported by an overwhelming majority. The week after that poll was conducted, I participated in a debate with the hon. Member for Reading, West (Mr. Salter) on "Channel 4 News", which subsequently conducted a telephone poll. The next day, it reported that 47 per cent. of people supported a ban and that 53 per cent. supported regulation or supervision. I am wary of telephone polls, but that poll suggested to me that there was some consistency. As 90,000 people phoned in, it was, at the very least, clear that the pro-ban organisations that were trying to marshal their support were unsuccessful in causing an enormous number of supporters to ring in.
      Mr. Banks: The "Powerhouse" poll asked whether members of the public would support strict measures of control, which sounds attractive. Unfortunately, however, the Middle Way Group's proposals contain no such measures. In many respects, the public were deceived and continue to be deceived by the middle way proposal. The hon. Gentleman said that the proposal is gaining resonance with the public, even though only a small number of Members of Parliament came together, but how many hon. Members now support the middle way, all these years later? He has given us numbers before, so what are the numbers now?
      Mr. Öpik: We are small, as I have said before, but we are perfectly formed. The loss of Alun Michael was a brief disaster for the organisation, but we replaced him. We have never had an enormous resource in terms of people—
      Mr. Michael: Will the hon. Gentleman give way, as he mentioned my name?
      Mr. Öpik: I said Alan Clark—the right hon. Gentleman is clearly having an identity crisis. [Interruption.] Okay I must have said the wrong thing. Such is the impression that the right hon. Gentleman has made on me in our proceedings. I intended to refer to the late Alan Clark, not to the un-late right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael).
      The Middle Way Group has maintained the statutory number of members that is required to make it an all-party organisation. It has done so with small resources.

      399
      The hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) asked a fair question in that respect. One of the most surprising things about the group's progress is that it has had very little money and a small team—of course, that team tends to turn up in the Chamber—but has gained increasing public support. Indeed, we heard just tic w about the evolving support in the constituency of the hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire (Mr. Taylor.)
      The hon. Member for West Ham made another interesting point about strict regulation. We can argue about whether the Middle Way Group's proposal provides sufficiently strict regulation, but is not such regulation different from a ban? If the hon. Gentleman is now saying that he is willing to discuss regulation, however strict, rather than a ban, the Middle Way Group is at least beginning to make substantial in-roads into a debate that has appeared previously to be a black and white issue. That is testimony to the fact that the debate has never needed to be as polarised and emotive as it has been until now.
      Mr. Gordon Prentice: Given that the Middle Way Group had two and a half years to cogitate on hare coursing, why did the manifesto that it circulated to all hon. Members contain no proposals on that activity? What practical differences would the regulatory regime proposed by the hon. Gentleman make to hare coursing? Will he deal with that point?
      Mr. Öpik: Yes. If the hon. Gentleman will bear with me, he will hear me explain the detail of the proposal. If he is not satisfied with those comments, I shall happily give way to him again. I point out now, however, that it was he who caused the Middle Way Group to revisit its position hare coursing. We did so for the simple reason that, as he rightly pointed out, we needed to maintain a consistent approach. Indeed, we have welcomed such feedback. Unlike Deadline 2000, which has sometimes failed in this respect, the Middle Way Group has genuinely tried to take on board suggestions, whether they have come from hon. Members, the public or elsewhere. That has been one of our strengths, and has added to the quality of our proposals.
      6.30 pm
      We are trying to offer a pragmatic solution. We have considered the history of animal welfare legislation and, in that spirit, we are trying to achieve a solution rather than a victory. Option 1 offers a form of self-regulation, which more or less happens now. The hon. Member for West Ham advised us that we should not vote for it. We shall consider his views, and inform him of our decision when we vote. If we do not vote for option 1, the hon. Gentleman can rest assured that, once again, we have listened to a Labour Back Bender. At least Liberal Democrat Back Benchers are listening to Labour Back Benchers, even if no one else is.
      Jackie Ballard: My hon. Friend is not speaking for the Liberal Democrats today.
      Mr. Öpik: I am sorry. Let me stress that I am speaking on behalf of the Middle Way Group, not the Liberal Democrats. My hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) did that earlier.
      400
      On option 3, we understand the aspiration for animal welfare, which we respect. I respect the hon. Member for Worcester, who is not in his place, and the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) because they have a genuine interest in the subject. However, I believe that option 3 will not achieve the desired result. Literature that the League Against Cruel Sports sent out recently described option 3 as,
      a decisive opportunity to save animals' lives.
      Most assessments suggest that more foxes will be killed in a potentially crueller way if option 3 is accepted. I shall return to that subject later.
      We set up our organisation out of anxiety about the proposals by the Countryside Alliance and Deadline 2000. Our proposals are based on four factors. First, all three key organisations accept that, in some circumstances, foxes need to be killed because they are pests. That is crucial. The question is not whether we kill foxes, but how we do it. In that context, we must compare killing a fox by using dogs with the alternative methods. Lord Burns emphasised that point in paragraph 48 of his report.
      Secondly, we assume that Lord Burns was correct when he said that killing a fox with dogs was not necessarily more cruel than the alternatives if done according to specific criteria or codes of practice. That finding is at the core of our proposals.
      Thirdly, we believe that civil liberties must be taken into account. The difference between the Middle Way Group and the other two organisations is that we attach more value to animal welfare than those who support the Countryside Alliance and more value to civil liberties than those who support Deadline 2000.
      Mr. Hayes: Before the hon. Gentleman moves on to consider civil liberties, let me point out that those of us who care passionately about the welfare of wildlife are worried about the alternatives that he describes. Labour Members, especially the hon. Members for Romford (Mrs. Gordon) and for Pendle (Mr. Prentice), seem to have missed the point that shooting, gassing, trapping or snaring are not only cruel but ruthlessly efficient. They would wipe out, for example, the brown hare population in my constituency and throughout Britain. Despite the views of the hon. Member for Romford, that also applies to foxes and the whole integrated wildlife population in the countryside.
      Mr. Öpik: As the hon. Gentleman says, passing option 3 will not save the life of a single fox. On balance, the fox population will decline for the reasons that he gave: other ruthless techniques will be used.
      Fourthly, we must not legislate on the basis of the motives of those who hunt. We cannot create legislation based on what we believe is going on in other people's heads. I would not make criminals of people simply because I found their motives distasteful. We must focus on the impact of people's actions, not their thought processes. Totalitarian regimes attempt to legislate for what people think. I do not accuse Labour Members who support a ban of attempting to create a totalitarian regime, but their approach is dangerous in a liberal and democratic society.
      Mr. Hogg: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we should not outlaw activities on the ground of motive.

      401
      Does he also agree that we should not outlaw them because, subjectively, we find them distasteful? There are many activities that we would find distasteful or wrong, but we would not wish to outlaw them through the criminal law.
      Mr. Öpik: I voted to equalise the age of consent for that reason, and I believe that we need to show tolerance on other matters. If we legislated on motive, or on finding matters distasteful, as the right hon. and learned Member said, some people would want to ban fishing, shooting, falconry and angling as well as eating meat. All those activities involve pleasure for the human at the expense of the animal. We do not have to eat meat to live; we choose to do it. On other animal welfare matters, enjoyment is not a factor when considering a ban.
      Jackie Ballard: Does my hon. Friend support legislation to protect domestic pets and farm animals from deliberate cruelty?
      Mr. Öpik: Yes. As my hon. Friend knows, I am keen to ensure that regulation in farming is effective. However, that is regulation. We have not yet banned eating meat in British society. We protect the welfare of the animal even though it is ultimately killed for human enjoyment. We have made that point many times.
      The libertarian concept of respecting and honouring our responsibilities to the animal kingdom in a balanced way is at the core of the Middle Way Group proposals.
      Mr. Hancock: How will the middle way proposals be policed during a hunt? When the fox is caught at the end of the hunt, how will the cruelty that currently occurs be prevented?
      Mr. Öpik: My hon. Friend pre-empts my next point; I was about to describe our proposals.
      First, let me deal with the impartiality of the authority.
      Our approach towards regulation is strict, clear and authoritative. The proposed regulation is probably stricter than any existing regulation to protect agricultural animals. Our approach is not only fair but transparent. The public can see that it is fair and that its welfare provisions are tough and yet respectful to civil liberties.
      Under our proposals, the authority would comprise between seven and 11 members, appointed by the Secretary of State. They would cover various interest groups, including animal welfare representatives, hunters, farmers, landowners, conservationists and veterinary practitioners. At least half the members should have no vested interest in the issue. It may be difficult to find such individuals, but Lord Burns proved that that could be done. As long as they perform their tasks professionally, they will be effective. The chair would also be independent. The members would be appointed for not more than five years and would be in charge of our proposals. The authority would cost the taxpayer nothing, because all individuals and organisations that want to hunt would be charged a licence fee, which would cover the entire cost of our proposals.
      The authority would have to submit an annual report to the Secretary of State and ultimately to Parliament. We would therefore be able to judge its effectiveness.
      402
      If they did not work, we would return with other proposals. If the Middle Way Group still existed, it would concede that the proposals needed to be changed. The hon. Members for West Ham, for Pendle and for Worcester would be able to say that stronger measures were required. We would respect that. We believe that the annual report will be sufficient to achieve our goal.
      The licences are tough. They cover coursing, which I shall mention shortly. However, not only groups but any individual who wants to go hunting with a dog must get a hunting licence, which means a personal financial cost. Such individuals must be at least 16 years old, must not be subject to relevant disqualifications involving offences in terms of our propos and must be capable of securing compliance. Moreover, they must renew their licences each year. It might be possible to apply specific conditions to specific individuals. The authority will have power to change the licensing procedure if it is seen to be inadequate in maximising the animal welfare considerations that the authority is legally mandated to uphold.
      Mr. Simon Thomas: The hon. Gentleman is giving the Middle Way Group's proposals the first in-depth examination that they have been given so far today. Has he had an opportunity to read the amendments tabled by my colleagues and me, and has the Middle Way Group had an opportunity to discuss them in the context of the effectiveness—or, certainly, the principle—of allowing the Welsh Assembly its role in the regulation of hunting in Wales in the event of acceptance of option 2?
      Mr. Öpik: Let me respond briefly to my friend and neighbour. Personally, I have considerable sympathy with what he has said, but I cannot speak for the Middle Way Group. We have not adopted a position on the matter because we are primarily concerned with regulation. I suspect that our views are different, but we have not discussed the issue—although I shall be happy to discuss it with him later.
      Our proposals contain an entire section relating to limitations on coursing, which was mentioned earlier. I am being as honest now as I tried to be in explaining to the hon. Member for Worcester, who is not here now, why we voted again; t Second Reading—as was the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff). We have had problems with the coursing issue, and we are not sure about it. It was not included in our initial proposals—some early drafts leaked out—but we included it subsequently, because we felt that we should be consistent, and we feel that it should be discussed further in Committee.
      Mr. Cawsey: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Öpik: I will in a minute—[Interruption.]
      The Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. The hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Mr. Cawsey) must wait until concessions have

      403
      been made to him before talking over what is being said by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik). I now call the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole.
      Mr. Cawsey: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the Middle Way Group has acknowledged that it is presenting a flawed option, which will have to be discussed in a forum other than this Committee of the whole House?
      Mr. Öpik: What kind of debate is taking place when a Member who has admitted that an issue in a schedule for which he or she is responsible could benefit from feedback across the Floor receives nothing but superficial criticism, and suggestions that the option is flawed? Whatever position may be taken in tonight's vote, I should like to think that the quality of debate in the Chamber could be higher than that.
      Mr. Simon Thomas rose—
      Mr. Öpik: I really do want to make progress.
      Mr. Thomas: I want to be helpful.
      Mr. Öpik: In that spirit of helpfulness, I give way.
      Mr. Thomas: Will the hon. Gentleman remind Labour Members—and, indeed, Members from all parties—that the Government have tabled amendments to their own Bill? They clearly do not consider it to be perfect.
      Mr. Öpik: No one questions the suggestion that the Government's position is flawed. The challenge was directed at the Middle Way Group which has a perfect reputation in the Chamber. However, the hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. We want debate The hon. Gentleman can take that or leave it—but it is sad that, despite the close friendship that we have built up during the past few years, he should choose to disrespect me in such a public forum.
      There are tough regulations governing hare coursing. They are there for all to see, and written in plain English. I give credit to the officials who have helped us all to ensure that that is the case. The regulations, however, can be made far tighter if that is required, without even changing the schedule involved.
      Mr. Gordon Prentice rose—
      Mrs. Gordon rose—
      Mr. Öpik: I must make progress.
      6.45 pm
      Our schedule demands extensive third-party insurance cover for anyone who obtains a licence. In other words, if someone messes things up he pays the victim, whether trespass damage, injury or emotional distress is involved. We consider this to be a very important part of the Bill.
      The authority will have the power to revoke or suspend a licence, and to add, vary, revoke or suspend terms or conditions. Those are wide-ranging powers which, if the authority acts responsibly and listens to advice, it will use to uphold the quality of regulation over the years.
      404
      The schedule also deals with inspection, and here I can answer some of the questions about how the system will be regulated. Part of the licence fee will be used to pay for a team of inspectors who will be able to drop in unannounced on licensed hunts anywhere in England or Wales, to check on how individuals are treating dogs or conducting the hunt, or to check on any other aspect of hunting procedures. We expect that to alleviate the enormous burden that would otherwise fall on the police, who would be required to be trained as experts in what they do not currently regard as their field. The schedule also covers the inspection of premises and events and anything else related to hunting with dogs.
      There is also a provision on training and examinations. We have not made it mandatory, but we propose that the authority should be able to provide instruction and examination in connection with the obtaining of a licence—although the applicant would have to pay for it. I think that the provision should be implemented, although that too will be a matter for debate. In any event, no other proposed provision on hunting has suggested such a comprehensive requirement for personal qualification.
      The provision relating to codes of practice is perhaps the toughest of all. Practices that would be covered by the code include
      autumn or cub hunting…digging out or bolting wild mammals which have gone to ground…stopping up earths and refuges…providing artificial earths and refuges…interfering with the flight of a wild mammal during a hunt, and…hunting a hind which is with its calf.
      Specific provision is also made in regard to permission from landowners for digging out, and the use of terriers underground.
      We would expect some of those activities to be banned by the authority for animal welfare reasons. I remind the Committee that the authority's crucial role is maintaining animal welfare. We will not proscribe them here, however, because we think that if the authority has the right membership it will do its job effectively.
      Mrs. Gordon: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Öpik: I want to finish my speech now.
      Our provision on offences covers prohibited hunting, unlicensed regulated hunting, hare coursing and the giving of false information. The penalties are severe: in some instances, a fine of £5,000 may be imposed—level 5 on the standard scale. There is also provision on search and seizure. The police can become involved here if they are required to, perhaps on the request of an inspector. A constable may stop and search a
      vehicle, animal or other thing
      associated with hunting. I am not sure how one searches an animal or other thing, but the provision is there.
      The provision on disqualification is equally strict. Page 15 contains the strongest disqualification of all: an order can specify the duration of a prohibition, which could last for the length of someone's life. We consider ours to be a powerful and robust set of proposals, although that is for other Members to judge.
      I want to end by responding to some of the key objections that we have heard. One is, "You cannot compromise on cruelty". Option 3, however, allows rats to be hunted with dogs, which is clearly a compromise. It is not possible to be absolutist: there must be a balance, even in option 3.

      405
      Some say that our proposals are unworkable, but we regulate activities ranging from fishing to the use of laboratory and food animals, and from that to the treatment of household pets. People do breach the code, but by and large it works. Others say that our proposals would not get rid of the cruelty. Is anyone seriously suggesting that the alternatives are not cruel? Something that kills us will certainly compromise our welfare. As Deadline 2000 has said, shooting with a rifle is the best way, if it is done correctly, but often a shotgun will be used and may merely wound the fox. The death would be a much more painful death than under the Middle Way Group proposals.
      What is barbaric? Again, that is a judgment call. It goes back to the cruelty debate. Fishing could be regarded as barbaric. I have never understood why reptiles are excluded when mammals are included in the ban. Why not protect cold-blooded organisms as well, not least because some in the Chamber would probably benefit?
      The accusation is often made that we are funded by the Countryside Alliance and that we are a stooge for the other group. Yesterday, in The Guardian, there was an advert which we found out would cost £16,275 under normal prices. That one advert, which criticised the Middle Way Group, cost more than twice the group's entire budget in the past three years. We have achieved resonance with the public not by buying it, but by talking to people and trying to win the arguments, as we have here.
      I have tried to put forward the case as the Middle Way Group sees it. Just because it does not go as far as a ban does not mean that all its supporters are pro-hunting. That point seems to have been lost in the debate. The real aim should be to improve animal welfare, not ban hunting and substitute it with methods which in some cases are worse.
      None of the options is perfect. We may have some way to go on hare coursing, for example, but we believe that the Middle Way Group option is the most workable. It keeps landowners onside and does not criminalise individuals who sincerely believe that they are doing nothing wrong.
      The debate on Second Reading caused us to vote no, for reasons that we described earlier. We are concerned that some people still feel that it is all or nothing. Today's debate is a chance for us to think about our responsibilities to animals and to people. Whether we do well will be a test of the quality of the House and its ability to listen.
      I used to support a ban, but I have found a better way, even though the League Against Cruel Sports has told me many times that it is not a vote winner in my constituency. Perhaps others can, too. Doing the right thing is not always the easy option, but in the name of common sense and liberty I ask hon. Members to choose the right route, not the easy one. In our judgment, the best way to resolve the matter is through the middle way.

      DEFERRED DIVISIONS
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I now have to announce the results of Divisions deferred from a previous day.
      406
      On the motion on the establishment of the Human Rights Joint Committee, the Ayes were 486, the Noes 3, so the motion was agreed to.
      On the motion on the membership of the Human Rights Joint Committee, the Ayes were 487, the Noes 2, so the motion was agreed to.
      [The Division Lists are published at the end of today's debates.]

      Hunting Bill
      Question again proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
      6.52 pm
      Mr. Bill Etherington: I appreciate being allowed to speak in the debate. I had to be absent for quite a time because I was on a Standing Committee.
      The Minister stated categorically that there had been a lot of time to discuss the issue. It is not a new issue that has suddenly arisen. Debate on it has continued for many generations. I shall m make my remarks in the light of that. Most hon. Members do not have closed minds and have reached a conclusion having spent a bit of time looking into it. We will have differences of opinion; that is only natural.
      The latecomer in the issue is the clause 2 option from the Middle Way Group. It reminds me of a device that I have seen from time to time in elections: a ringer. For those who do not know what that is, when someone appears to be a favourite and another appears to have a rather poor chance a third person is brought in to create the right amount of confusion. Sometimes, the favourite can be overturned and the non-favourite elected because there is a so-called compromise among votes.
      I shall vote against clauses 1 and 2 because they are not very different. I shall vote in favour of clause 3. There are several reasons for that. Since I was at school, I have found foxhunting abhorrent. It may suit some hon. Members to say that they do not like the word "barbaric". We all have different ways of expressing ourselves and we do not always mean quite the same thing when we use the same word. I consider foxhunting to be as barbaric a method of destroying a fox as it is possible to imagine. What makes it even worse is that I find it impossible to understand how, in the name of sport, human beings can entertain themselves by their cruel destruction of an animal, as happens with foxhunting.
      It goes further. It is not just a matter of lack of concern for animal welfare. I am as concerned about animal welfare as any hon. Member. It is very important and it is part of the foxhunting issue, but there is a more important issue: where human beings involve themselves in a barbaric practice, they demean the human race. The way in which animals such as foxes are treated with contempt can spread. A philosophy can grow whereby some human beings think that it is all right to treat other human beings in the same manner.
      I have no doubt that some hon. Members will accuse me of being immoderate in my views. People are entitled to be in favour of foxhunting, but they are not entitled to impugn the motives and will of others who oppose them. They shout loud and long about how they are not understood. I think that they are well understood. The fact that people do not

      407
      agree with them does not mean that they are not understood. It means they have concluded that they totally disagree with the practice. That is the issue.
      The argument about town and country is ludicrous. I have lived most of my adult life in the country, although I represent a city constituency. I do not detect much difference in people's opinions. I have not had one piece of correspondence or representation from a constituent in favour of the clause 1 option, out of about 70,000 voters. Numerous people have made representations asking me to vote against foxhunting. I do not know why they bothered. If they had followed the publicity closely, they would know that that was what I was going to do.
      I hope that the argument will end. I hope that we start to end it tonight. I felt sorry for my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster). He secured a satisfactory vote for his private Member's Bill. The Government did not deign to send the matter to the House of Lords. A bit of a legend has built up that it was defeated by the Lords. I do not know how that has come about, but I have read that in several places. Suffice it to say that I know that it is untrue. It does no one any credit.
      As and when we vote in favour of clause 3 tonight, as I think we will, may we have an undertaking from the Government that they will take the Bill forward on our behalf to the House of Lords and tell it that, if it does not act properly and democratically, as we will have done tonight, the Parliament Acts will be invoked and the Bill will be brought back here? That is what people outside are looking for.
      When our constituents and voters were given an undertaking that there was to be a free vote, they did not understand the niceties of this place. They did not understand that that could be a promise that meant nothing. They thought that it would be part of a sequence of events to help to bring about the end of foxhunting.
      I do not want to hear a lot more about the fact that a minority are being oppressed. There is no oppression of a minority where a majority decides to use that majority to change legislation. I have no doubt that when legislation was introduced to abolish slavery, slave traders said that their personal rights and freedoms were being eroded. I know that we heard the same arguments from coal owners when children were prevented from working underground in the mines. The principle is the same.
      The minority has to understand that, in a democracy, a majority prevails. If a majority does not prevail and a minority is allowed to prevail, we will have something that is very close to anarchy. In a democracy, one cannot be asked to be left alone when a vast majority of people do not agree with one's activities If the majority does not prevail, everyone can do as they wish and that would be the end of it.
      7 pm
      Mr. David Taylor: I am grateful to my good Friend for giving way. However, he is not saying, is he, that an activity should be prohibited in legislation because a majority disapprove of it? Do we not need a stronger reason for prohibition? I disagree with and disapprove
      408
      strongly of boxing and smoking, for example, but I not think that either should be prohibited in legislation. Do we not need a stronger reason?
      Mr. Etherington: I believe that strength lies within the population. We want to ban foxhunting not because a majority of people dislike it, but because a majority want it to be abolished.
      Mr. Peter Atkinson: What about hanging?
      Mr. Etherington: I can think of quite a few candidates for that. However, as I do not believe in hanging, I shall have to divest myself of that particular pleasure—just as foxhunters will have to divest themselves of their pleasure.
      It churns my insides to think that people can get enjoyment out of seeing an animal torn limb from limb. It is absolutely appalling. As a nation, we have quite a good reputation around the world on animals. However, it is perhaps wrongly thought that the United Kingdom is full of animal lovers. Although I wish that that were correct, it seems that many people in this country who love their own animals have no time for anyone else's animals. So, that reputation is not quite true.
      Mr. Richard Livsey: The hon. Gentleman has been talking about a majority who are anti-hunting. However, as he well knows, recent polls have shown that the reverse is true—that people are willing to tolerate hunting. In many cases, particularly in farming, people wish to protect their own animals, which they look after very well, from foxes.
      Mr. Etherington: Different polls will always give different results and there will be fluctuations. However, over a great many years, a majority of the public have stated that they abhor hunting with dogs, and that is good enough for me. I remember that, not so long ago, a national poll showed that the Conservative party was in the lead. However, we all knew—even Conservative Members knew—that that was just a blip. I suspect that the fluctuation that the hon. Gentleman mentioned is just the same.
      Several hon. Members have asked whether we are legislating to criminalise people. Legislation does not criminalise anyone; people criminalise themselves by ignoring that legislation. If people believe in democracy and the rule of law—we are signed up to, for example, the Council of Europe and the United Nations charter on human rights—and if Parliament, using parliamentary procedure, bans foxhunting, as I sincerely hope it will, we should expect everyone to fall into line.
      I have had to fall into line with legislation that I did not much like. At such times, I had a choice: fall into line, or stand by my principle, break the law, as was my privilege, and be dealt with accordingly. However, the consequence would be the result of my own choice, not the fault of those who passed the legislation. Therefore, we should not be talking about criminalising people.
      I hope that this will be an historic day. About eight and a half years ago, not long after I was first elected to the House, I was asked what single change would give me the most satisfaction in politics, and I said, "The abolition of foxhunting." I think that we are quite near that goal.

      409
      The desperation of impending defeat has led to the creation of the Middle Way Group, so that it could cause confusion. That group did not exist 30 years ago, but was created only recently, when the issue became the flavour of the month.
      Mrs. Golding: I shall forgive my hon. Friend for suggesting that I am a ringer and that I do not stand up for what I believe in. No one puts me up to anything. He has been talking about foxhunting, but the legislation encompasses rabbit hunting and all other forms of hunting. The only hunting that will be allowed is hunting for rats on one's own ground, in one's own garden. Therefore, all those terriers belonging to the miners about whom he cares so much will not be allowed out to hunt for foxes, rats or anything else. What does he feel about that? Is he as passionate about that?
      Mr. Etherington: My hon. Friend mentions my regard for miners, but my record in standing up for miners is second to that of no hon. Member. I should think that that is indisputable. However, my great regard for miners does not require me to agree with every single one of their activities. It would be a little ridiculous if she were suggesting that I should let miners do whatever they wish because I like them.
      I also did not accuse my hon. Friend of being a ringer. I said that the tactics being used by the Middle Way Group reminded me of electoral tactics involving a ringer. Then I defined a ringer. I did not suggest that anyone was a ringer or that anyone involved with the Middle Way Group was a ringer. I hope that my hon. Friend is clear on that.
      I have said enough and I feel happy now. This is the first opportunity that I have had to speak on the subject, which is somewhat surprising to me if to no one else. I hope that we shall make some progress. I also hope that we can bring the United Kingdom into the 21st century on the issue. Hunting is more reminiscent of 14th and 15th century activities than of current ones.
      Mr. John Townend: I am rather worried about the hon. Gentleman's prospects. However, it was rather refreshing to hear him admit that the Prime Minister, who went on television to say that the House of Lords had defeated the Foster Bill, had committed a terminological inexactitude.
      Mr. Etherington: On a point of order, Sir Alan. The hon. Gentleman is totally wrong; I did not say that. I said that it came from some source.
      The Chairman: Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman must know that that is not a matter for the occupant of the Chair, but a matter for debate. I remind the Committee that we are rapidly losing time, and that I am trying to get in as many hon. Members as I can.
      Mr. Townend: I should also think that the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Etherington) might be in danger of being classed as politically incorrect by comparing slaves with foxes.
      I approach the debate from the point of view of one who has never hunted, fished or shot. However, the force that drove me into politics was a passionate belief in and
      410
      love for individual freedom. In the late 1940s and 1950s, when I first became involved in politics, individual freedom was being undermined continuously by the rampant progress of socialism and the increase of state control.
      As the hon. Member for Sunderland, North said, in a democracy, the majority will usually prevail. There is, however, one caveat. It is very dangerous if a majority try to legislate to remove a minority's right to partake in pastimes and pleasures that do not affect anyone else. When that happens, democracy becomes tyranny.
      Mr. Gerry Steinberg: According to the hon. Gentleman's argument, he should believe in an individual's freedom to do as he or she likes. Did he believe that badger baiting should be banned?
      Mr. Townend: There is a great difference between badger baiting and foxhunting, as badger baiting contained no element of pest control. It was in an entirely different class. As I said, however, we are debating foxhunting. Although I have reservations about hare coursing, I want to talk about foxhunting, as that is what really affects my constituents and I have a couple of hunts in my constituency.
      Both today and in our previous debate on the Bill, Labour Members have claimed that those who oppose a ban on foxhunting are a minority in the countryside. I contest that, and suggest that those hon. Members should study the numbers who will come to London for the freedom march. I should be very surprised if those who feel passionately about banning foxhunting could get an equivalent number of people from the countryside to demonstrate. That is very unlikely.
      We are told, rightly, that we must respect the customs of the minority. Our country has been turned from a homogenous English nation into a multicultural, multi-ethnic nation. We have accepted that ethnic minorities have a right not be forced to integrate but to have their own culture. Indeed, under the law we allow the barbaric system of ritual killing known as halal slaughter, even though it undoubtedly causes suffering to the animals killed, who have a long and slow death. I suggest that the suffeting of those animals and the number of animals involved are far greater than the number and suffering of hunted foxes.
      Mr. Hogg: When I was Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals made representations to me about halal slaughter. I said that in many respects I found the process distasteful, but mat it seemed wrong to prohibit it under the criminal law simply for that reason. I therefore declined to act. That is the course of action that people should take.
      Mr. Townend: I agree entirely. I find that form of ritual killing rather abhorrent, but I understand the culture and history of the people involved, and believe that we must be tolerant. It is very strange that Labour Members who are so keen that we respect and tolerate the cultural rights and beliefs of minorities should now propose to destroy part of the culture and freedom of the countryside.
      I am amazed that those who favour banning hunting are not prepared to extend the same tolerance to minorities of their own countrymen, the English and the Welsh, who

      411
      want only to continue the traditional country sports that they and their forefathers have enjoyed for centuries. I suggest that that is a flagrant example of double standards.
      Many Labour Members consider most people who hunt to be toffs. Those of us who live in the countryside know that that is not true. The vast majority of people who hunt are ordinary people. However, if the majority of people who hunt belonged to minorities—if they were coloured people or homosexuals—I suggest that the Bill would never have been brought before us. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."]I think that I make the point very well. I am in favour of the rights of minorities, but Labour Members are not in favour of the rights of the people of the countryside.
      I am fortunate to live in the countryside, although I was brought up in a city. We townies have a duty to respect the traditions and way of life of those who have lived in the countryside for generations. I suggest that most people who live there and who oppose hunting came from the towns. They live in the new estates in the villages, and are not countryside people, born and bred.
      There is a crisis in the countryside. Farming is in an appalling state, and people's incomes have fallen dramatically. It is unbelievable that we should be doing so little to deal with the real problems of the countryside, where many people's livelihoods are being destroyed, yet are prepared to destroy a pastime that is part of the countryside's social fabric. There is no doubt that that will have some economic effects.
      It is worrying that people say that 16,000 jobs lost might pose a problem, but that only 7,000 or 2,000 jobs will be lost. The problems faced by people who lost their jobs would be equally great, however many of them there were.
      Mr. David Taylor: Will the hon. Gentleman regale the Committee with details of the level of his opposition to the loss of jobs in rural coalfields that happened under the Administration that he supported in past Parliaments?
      7.15 pm
      Mr. Townend: I do not want to go into the question of coal, but I certainly strongly supported the proposals of my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) to save a number of our pits. [HON. MEMBERS: "Save?"] My right hon. Friend saved them in the short term. I do not think that the record of this Government has been particularly good in that respect.
      Labour Members dismissed this point earlier, but I firmly believe that if hunting is banned tonight, many people in the anti-hunting camp will move on to shooting. That would be logical. They will then move on to fishing. I suggest that one of the reasons Labour Members deny that is that many Labour voters take part in fishing.
      There is a lot of hypocrisy in the Chamber tonight. Those who speak so passionately about the cruelty of hunting do not seem to appreciate that foxes are vermin that must be controlled. There is no doubt that foxes will suffer more if they are killed not by dogs but by shooting. Death by shooting is not always clean. Wounded animals can crawl away and take days to die of gangrene.
      I was recently given a snare—a horrible item that gets tighter around an animal's body the more it struggles. It is an appalling instrument, but it is legal. The suffering of foxes will be even greater if hunting with dogs is banned.

      412
      Shooting causes a great deal of suffering. At a pheasant shoot, 500 birds can be downed in a day. That compares with the one or two foxes killed in a hunt, and not all the birds are killed instantly. In fishing, the poor fish gets a hook stuck in its throat. It is then played—tortured—before it is taken out of the water. The hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) said that he was a good fisherman and very gentle, but fish are thrown back into the water for the torture to recommence. There is much talk about the need to return to nature. However, we must never forget that man, by his very nature, is a hunter.
      Who will enforce the law if this Bill is passed? The police will, of course. The country is very short of police. Rural crime has been rising. I do not accept the argument that the amount of police time at present spent dealing with the thugs who are anti-hunt demonstrators will equate to the amount of time needed to enforce a hunting ban.
      We are proposing to turn tens of thousands of people into criminals. What they are doing is at present within the law. We will be telling them that their pastime will be turned into a criminal act. The inevitable result would be a massive loss of support for the police in the countryside. That would be very dangerous.
      I was among those who passionately opposed the incorporation of the Strasbourg human rights regime in British law. It is ironic that whatever the Committee decides will probably be overruled on the ground of human rights.
      To people who disapprove of hunting I say, "Don't do it, but for goodness sake don't take away the individual freedom of those who want to do it." Over the generations, many people have fought and died for that individual freedom.
      Mr. McFall: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate. I shall be brief. Some people have spoken about Scottish Members voting in Westminster. To vote here is my constitutional right as a political unionist: if anyone can prove to me that it is not my right, I shall not vote. However, no one will be able to do that.
      I have taken part in the foxhunting debate since the early 1990s, and I presented a private Member's Bill—the Wild Mammals (Protection) Bill—in 1995, which was approved by 253 votes to zero. It was about animal welfare and sought to update the Protection of Animals Act 1911, which protected domestic animals but not mammals. The opponents to hunting killed that Bill eventually in the House of Lords because of one word—"torture". They said that, if that word was in the Bill, they could be charged by the police. In that action, they illustrated the weakness of their argument.
      Thankfully, the issue was taken up the next year by my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale). The Wild Mammals (Protection) Act 1996 is part of a rolling process of reform of animal welfare in this House. I shall gladly vote tonight for the third option.
      There are a number of issues here. It is argued that banning hunting is an attack on the countryside. I mentioned my Bill; in 1995, I received 12,000 letters on the subject. Other right hon. and hon. Members had between 750,000 to 1 million postcards and letters sent to them. I had many, many responses from those in the countryside. Indeed, there was a group known as Conservatives for the McFall Bill—I was scared that they

      413
      would abridge the name to Conservatives for McFall. I had many communications from Conservative supporters living in the countryside. The idea that hunting is a social activity associated with the countryside and loved by those in it is exaggerated. I do not rest on anecdotal evidence for that statement, but on the polls and statistics.
      A MORI poll has been undertaken over the past few years in a rolling programme. MORI has indicated that 75 per cent. of those living in rural communities do not consider hunting to be an important part of daily life. The number is similar with regard to hunting with dogs. Indeed, the ratio of country people supporting a ban on fox hunting is 2:1. That tells us about rural dwellers.
      Mr. David Taylor: I have conducted a large survey in north-west Leicestershire, a hunting county, which shows that in the rural areas there is still sizeable support for the abolition of hunting, but that 25 per cent. of those polled have been attracted by the middle way option, which has been expounded this evening. Thus the poll to which my hon. Friend refers may not be entirely up to date.
      Mr. McFall: I think that the research that my hon. Friend conducted and the Burns report research were conducted in hunt communities. There is support for hunting in rural areas with hunting communities, but that is concentrated around the hunt. In the countryside in general, people support the hunt ban by two to one.
      Mr. Öpik: The hon. Gentleman is aware of the two polls in December that I and others cited, one for "Powerhouse" and another for "Channel 4 News". Both showed that 47 to 48 per cent. of people were in favour of a ban and 52 to 53 per cent. were in favour of regulation or supervision. Those are national polls, and they go against the figures that the hon. Gentleman quotes. We can play games with polls, but the hon. Gentleman must recognise that there is no longer unequivocal support for a ban in the United Kingdom.
      Mr. McFall: I take the hon. Gentleman's point. However, the Channel 4 poll was conducted over the telephone, whereas MORI conducted a statistical poll over a rolling period, so statistically it is more accurate. It concludes that rural dwellers nationally are not pro-hunting, not at odds with urban dwellers over the most important issues and, indeed, not predominantly Conservative voters. In fact, more are Labour voters.
      The anecdotal evidence presented to me in 1995 shows that the hunt is disruptive and disturbing. There is a romantic notion that, when hunting, people are at peace with the countryside. However, it is disruptive to people, socially and personally. The RSPCA has come up with numerous cases which they describe as "hunt havoc". I shall give an example. There was an incident in 1998 in which the hunt concluded in a local children's play area. The dogs tore into the fox and ripped him apart in front
      414
      of children just let out from school. As the grandmother reporting the incident commented, the children involved were terrified. She said that dogs,
      most of them covered with blood … were running riot through the children's play area … and the poor school children were fending off the dogs with their satchels.
      That is the reality of hunting in rural areas. The image of urban versus rural society is entirely imaginary.
      There is a resonance between urban and rural voters. Again, the MORI poll indicates that the 10 most important issues faced by rural constituents are the same as for urban constituents. The first seven are—in order—transport, environment and pollution, conservation of wildlife, infrastructure and improving roads, crime and law and order, unemployment and education. Those are the same issues that the urban voter is interested in, and the Government are tackling them. The poll indicates that the term, "the country way of life" is recognised by less than 2 per cent. of the people.
      The hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Townend) spoke about foxhunting as a necessary form of pest control. Statistics show that about 3 to 5 per cent. of the fox population is killed by hunting. More are killed on the roads. The Burns report found that foxhunting makes only a minor contribution to the management of the fox population. If the issue is reducing the numbers, why do some hunts create artificial breeding grounds, even providing dead chickens and sheep for food? There are more humane methods, such as lamping. Another is confined to Scotland. Under the Deer (Scotland) Act 1959, the deer population is reduced on a yearly basis by shooting. I am not against shooting. It is very important that, if foxes have to be controlled, there is another way of controlling them.
      The nub of the issue is that those who participate in foxhunting regard it as a sport. I do not deny them their social activities, which is why I advocate drag hunting. Let me give some more anecdotal evidence. I had dinner at Christmas time with an individual who is a foxhunter and a gamekeeper. The gamekeeper said, "Yes, John, people go foxhunting because of the chase—the thrill." The person who went foxhunting said, "Quite frankly, it is a good sport."
      It is a sport that is and has been unacceptable to the House for many years. I thought that it would have been outlawed by 2000. We are not lucky enough for that to have happened yet, but I, along with other right hon. and hon. Members, want to ensure that next year, or the year after, we get rid of this barbaric sport. If we do that, we can consider ourselves and our country more humane.
      Mr. Paice: This has, in general, been a good, unemotional debate on an issue that arouses huge emotions. The emotions shown this evening have run less high than they did on Second Reading, when we heard some quite intemperate language. I want to address the issue in a cool and reasoned way.
      It is important for Members of Parliament not be swept along by emotion, but to stand back and address the issue logically and rationally. I shall not go into the various polls that have been undertaken, because whether a majority is in favour of a particular action is not relevant. It is not relevant how small the minority is. What really matters is whether it is right for the House to take the action that is being suggested, and we must assess that logically and rationally.

      415
      7.30 pm
      I came into Parliament with relatively few cardinal principles other than the ones that my party stands for, but I passionately believe in the right of individuals to live their lives and to accept the responsibility of being in charge of their lives, and everything that goes with that. Yes, there are times when the state, represented by this House, seeks to curtail the freedom of individuals, but every time that we do that, we have a responsibility to ensure that we intervene only where it is clearly justified—usually because an action affects the freedom of other individuals to live their lives. The presumption should always be on the side of personal liberty. Anyone who seeks to restrict that liberty must prove their case.
      It was said many times on Second Reading, and one or two hon. Members have said tonight, that this is not a civil liberties debate. Of course it is. Any debate about legislation that restricts an individual's liberty is a civil liberties debate. The question is whether that restriction is justified. Having read the Burns report carefully, I do not believe that the case is made for that restriction.
      The statement in the Burns report that hunting compromises the welfare of the animal is often quoted. That is obvious and does not need saying. It is self-evident that the individual animal's welfare is compromised. I want to look more widely and take into account the interests of the species. I believe passionately that banning hunting would damage the welfare of the species as a whole, even if hunting obviously involves the death of individuals.
      Mr. Gordon Prentice: How does it help a declining hare population, which was mentioned in the United Kingdom biodiversity plan drawn up by the Conservative Government, if we allow people to kill the hare for sport?
      Mr. Paice: The answer is clear. Coursing takes place only in areas where there are hares. As I shall explain later, I believe that the hare population is better served on estates and in areas where coursing takes place than where it does not.
      In support of my comment about the welfare of the species, I want to quote the Burns report. I know that it is easy to find bits of the report to quote in support of our case. On page 14, Burns says clearly:
      It follows that the welfare of animals which are hunted should be compared with the welfare which, on a realistic assessment, would be likely to result from the legal methods used by farmers and others to manage the population of these animals in the event of a ban on hunting.
      That demonstrates to me that the issue of the welfare of the species is vital.
      As other hon. Members have said, no lives would be saved, especially in the case of foxes, by banning hunting. The hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) said that only 3 or 5 per cent. of the total fox kill in a year is by hunting. That does not matter to me. The fact is that foxes will still be culled even if hunting is abandoned. The issue is how they are killed.
      Although Burns says that lamping is perhaps the most efficient method, he also says that that is so only if it is carried out by an efficient marksman and in ideal conditions, which do not often arise. I have been involved in lamping and the fact is that a fox can move just at the moment the marksman pulls the trigger. The marksman may be able to shoot bull after bull on a range, but if the
      416
      animal moves just at the instant that he pulls the trigger, no marksman in the world can ensure that the animal is not wounded. That is using a high-powered rifle. If people use shotguns, as many do, few foxes die instantaneously. I have seen many of them shot in that way and it takes a few minutes or, sadly, several days for the fox to go away and die.
      There is clear evidence that, were stag hunting to be banned, the deer population would suffer drastically. The only reason why farmers and landowners in the Quantocks and elsewhere allow large populations of deer on their land is for hunting. There is clear evidence that, if there were no hunting, they would shoot out those populations, and deer overall would suffer.
      Mr. Swayne: I have received representations from constituents about what they regard as excessive deer culling by the Forestry Commission in the New Forest. Two years ago, the New Forest Buck Hounds shut their doors. They never dispatched many deer, but they dispersed the deer population throughout the forest. Now the deer congregate as far from the tourists as they can, in the most remote enclosures. That is precisely where the Forestry Commission estimates that they do the most damage—hence the determination to reduce the population.
      Mr. Paice: My hon. Friend is right. His intervention endorses the point that I was making.
      The hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) referred to the hare, the third most commonly hunted species. On estates that allow legal coursing meets to take place—obviously, I am not referring to the countless illegal operations that sadly take place in parts of the country—almost without exception the landowners husband and conserve the hares. The hares are coursed on a small number of days, depending how many meets there are, but even then the majority get away. On average, only between one in eight and one in ten are killed. Thus the welfare of the hare population is better on an estate that allows coursing.
      Mr. Hayes: Will my hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. Paice: I would rather not. I have a lot to say and I know that other hon. Members wish to speak, Sir Alan—[Interruption.] I apologise, Mrs. Heal. I was not facing the Chair; otherwise, I would obviously have noticed the difference.
      The debate is not about cruelty per se. As other hon. Members have demonstrated, the House could address issues involving far greater cruelty and bring far greater benefits to animal welfare. Religious slaughter has been mentioned. The hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) referred to his cats. Cats are responsible for far more death in the countryside than foxes or humans, yet no one suggests banning cats. The difference is not the pain felt by the victim. I suggest that the pain, however one defines it, felt by the victim of a cat is no different and is probably worse than the pain felt by the victim of a hound. The difference is that, in the case of the hound and its quarry, people are involved and watching.
      The real issue is what people should be doing and whether it is right for people's souls for them to, as some have suggested, enjoy inflicting cruelty. I believe that that is wrong. We have heard many spurious reasons for

      417
      banning hunting. Some people say that hunters are unpleasant people. The hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster) read out articles from his local paper. I am the first to accept that I find some people who go hunting obnoxious. There are people in every walk of life whom I find obnoxious, and I have no doubt that there are people who find me obnoxious.
      Mr. Robathan: No, no.
      Mr. Paice: It is very kind of my hon. Friend.
      That is not a reason for stopping people doing what they want to do. The hon. Member for West Ham said that no one was criticising people who go hunting. If he read some of the correspondence that I receive, in which hunters are accused of being twisted and wicked and all sorts of evil people, he would take that back. We have even heard about red coats and pink coats. I do not care what people wear. It does not affect the issue of whether hunting should be banned.
      A question that has often been asked in debates on the issue over the years is, "How would you like to be chased and torn apart by hounds?" Of course, the answer is that I would not like it, but nor would I like anything else about the life of a fox, a hare or even a deer. I would not want to live in a hole in the ground, snuffle about in cow pats, or engage in any of their other activities. That question demonstrates the absurdity of bestowing on an animal the intelligence, feelings and sensations of a human. I passionately believe that to be wrong.
      We have heard the arguments about dog fighting, bear baiting and bull baiting. The difference is that all of those involved putting animals in a captive environment within an enclosed pit or ring from which there was no escape, and the fight was to the death.
      Mr. David Taylor: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Paice: No, I will not. I know that the hon. Gentleman feels strongly about the issue, but I want to get through my speech and allow other hon. Members time to speak.
      Mr. Taylor: What is terrier work, if it is not that?
      The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mrs. Sylvia Heal): Order.
      Mr. Paice: I have said nothing about terrier work. I have talked about dog fighting, bear baiting, bull baiting and other activities that were banned decades, if not centuries, ago. They were wholly different. We are discussing hunting an animal in its natural environment.
      Let me move on to the issue of whether we should judge what people do or do not do. Labour Members have said that they have no intention of moving towards a ban on shooting or fishing, although some said that they would not support that. I welcome that pronouncement, but I remind Labour Members that there are others who do not share that view. The League Against Cruel Sports has clearly stated:
      Human entertainment is inadequate justification for the destruction of life.
      418
      I have leaflets here—I shall not detain the House by quoting from them—in which the league condemns virtually every other activity that is classified as a field sport.
      Dawn Preston of the Hunt Saboteurs Association has said:
      The Association has been in existence for almost 40 years and our memorandum of association clearly states that we exist to "sabotage where practicable the pursuit, harassment and killing of any sentient creature for sport, pleasure or population control … until such practices cease to exist".
      Some dismiss those people as extremists, but it is quite commonplace for what was once an extreme view to become mainstream policy in a short space of time. Indeed, the Prime Minister stated last summer that he had no intention of banning shooting or fishing. That may be what he said, but in the short space of time—some five or six months—since then, the Home Office has already done two things to make shooting much more difficult. First, it has backed the proposals for much stricter control over gun ownership, which can only detract from people's opportunities for shooting. Secondly, it has decided to increase the fee for a firearms or shotgun certificate from £17 to £40. Those actions do not fit in with a belief that the sports are not under threat.
      There is no doubt that animals—I include fish in that description—can feel pain. That is the reality, for which there is plenty of scientific evidence. However, it is not a proven point that that pain manifests itself as terror, as has often been suggested. Even Professor Bateson, in his report on deer hunting, said:
      Fear, distress, suffering and pain are all defined in terms of human subjective experience.
      The bottom line is that we do not know how those experiences manifest themselves in different animals, fish or birds. However, we can be pretty sure that they will not be the same as they are for humans, for reasons relating to their wholly different ways of life.
      Lord Soulsby—I point out for the record that he is a constituent of mine—was a member of the Burns committee. He published a critique of the Bateson report, in which he stated:
      It is important that as full an account as possible of the physiological effects of hunting deer and other species be obtained to allow a justifiable scientific stand … If hunting is to be rejected on scientific grounds then the scientific evidence should be more conclusive than it is at present.
      I remind hon. Members that Lord Soulsby was emeritus professor of animal pathology at Cambridge university.
      7.45 pm
      I want to touch on the effect of the proposals on point-to-points, in which I have a strong constituency interest. I have two point-to-point courses in my constituency, at Horseheath and Cottenham. There is no doubt that that common, countryside weekend activity would be severely damaged by a ban on hunting. The British Horseracing Board gave evidence to the Burns inquiry, in which it stated:
      The BHB believes that a ban on hunting with dogs would severely undermine the present scale of Point-to-Pointing, and that this in turn would have a damaging impact on British Racing.
      There is no doubt in my mind that that is correct.
      To conclude, I believe that this is a matter of liberty. I do not believe that the Burns report has proven an overwhelming case of cruelty that would justify the House

      419
      in restricting people's liberty, as is proposed. I believe that the argument returns to the issue of a moral judgment over what people should or should not do, and what they should or should not enjoy. I do not believe that that is a decision for the House; it is a decision for the individual.
      Mrs. Golding: I want to raise two issues. Most people have been talking about foxhunting, but the Bill is not solely about foxhunting: it is about hunting with dogs. The only hunting with dogs that would be permitted under the Bill would be hunting for rats and you could only hunt for rats if they were on your own property, if they were in your garden, you could set the dogs on them to hunt for them, but the moment they went out of your front gate, you would have to say to the dog, "Don't go out there. That's not my property." The only way of allowing the dog to go out would be to obtain permission from the owner of the land on the other side of your garden fence. That would be nonsense, and it is inconceivable that it should be allowed. We have many rats in this country, and they should be exterminated. If we could not do it with dogs, I cannot imagine anyone doing much good with a gun.
      Mr. Tom Levitt: Warfarin.
      Mrs. Golding: Yes, you could use rat poison, but to stop dogs hunting for rats seems to be a crazy idea.
      The other issue is one that I have often raised before. I have received a leaflet from the Staffordshire Wildlife Trust, of which I have been a member for many years, and which I strongly support. The leaflet states:
      The mink swims better than the vole and the female is small enough to follow the water vole into its burrow. In other words, the mink is perfectly designed to kill the water vole.
      Staffordshire Wildlife Trust wants to take immediate action to counter the threats from habitat change, man and mink to prevent the water vole becoming extinct…
      One option in the Bill seeks to ban hunting for mink. No other creature, except man, can exterminate mink. If we go for the third option, we shall prevent that happening. I cannot understand how people who say that they are going to defend the countryside and that they are interested in the environment can say that one should not hunt for mink. Nothing else will destroy them.
      Mr. Simon Thomas: I shall concentrate my remarks on the amendments that I have tabled with the support of my right hon. and hon. Friends regarding the commencement of the option on which the Committee will decide tonight. I want to put that briefly in context. Several hon. Members rightly described how they have consulted their constituents and worked with interests in their constituencies. On the whole, that has led them to believe that a ban is the right option in these circumstances. I have gone through a similar process.
      Almost a year ago today, I stood in a by-election in Ceredigion to be elected to the House. My new-Labour opponent made my views on hunting an issue. Unfortunately for my opponent, we won with the largest ever percentage of the vote for Plaid Cymru. Even more unfortunately for new Labour, its candidate came fourth, with the worst ever result for the Labour party in Ceredigion. It was clear what I stood for as regards hunting in Ceredigion and west Wales and the upland and sheep farming areas of Wales in particular. During the
      420
      campaign, I said that, should I be elected to the House, I would table the relevant amendments to ensure that the National Assembly for Wales had a say on hunting in Wales. That is the purpose of tabling our amendments and seeking the Committee's support for them.
      I want to say a few words about the effect that our amendments may have on hunting in Wales. My views are not the only reason for our tabling them. After the publication of the Burns report, the National Assembly debated the report and gave its response to it. On a Conservative motion, the National Assembly voted, albeit narrowly, to ask for the powers to decide on hunting in Wales to be devolved. I am sure that Labour Members will not complain if there is a narrow vote for a ban tonight. Our amendments represent the view of the majority of Members of the National Assembly, though not, of course, the view of the present Lib-Lab coalition in the National Assembly.
      Before the summer, when I first raised the matter with the Home Secretary, a couple of things were said to me, which the Minister has repeated. I want to quash the nasty rumours about what the amendments may mean to Wales or to the devolution settlement—which I would not describe as settled, but be that as it may. I hope that our amendments are selected. They would amend the commencement orders and the way in which those are drawn up, so that the National Assembly could make decisions in Wales. For example, were option 2 agreed to—perhaps not tonight, but further down the line when the Bill returns from the other place—the National Assembly would decide the details of the hunting authority in Wales and matters such as what hunting would or would not be licensed. Let me give a personal example: I see no reason at all for hare coursing, and many of my remarks will address the need for foxhunting as pest control.
      Mr. Hayes: The hon. Gentleman refers to hare coursing, and a lot of misapprehensions about it are apparent in the Chamber. Is he aware that illegal hare coursing, which takes place without the permission of landowners, usually for the kill and for big money, is widespread in the east of England and partly responsible for the destruction of the brown hare population, which the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) mentioned? If it cannot be policed now, what difference would passing a Bill banning hunting with dogs make? Illegal hare coursing has a lot to answer for, but such a Bill would do nothing to address the problem.
      Mr. Thomas: If it is illegal, it should be stopped. It is as simple as that.
      Mr. Hayes: It is not that simple.
      Mr. Thomas: Well, it is. It is the Government's responsibility to provide the right resources to enable that to happen. I shall address the two main needs arising from the Bill: keeping upland sheep farming alive in Wales and maintaining an active, vital and biodiverse countryside. For me, hare coursing has no part in that. However, foxhunting, under a system of regulation, has.
      My final point about the devolution aspects of our amendments concerns the idea that to introduce different criminal sanctions in Wales and in England would

      421
      somehow be to undermine and rip up the United Kingdom constitution—not that it exists to rip up, of course. There have been differences in the past. Sunday pub opening was different in England and in Wales: it was a crime to have a pint in Wales, but perfectly legal to do so in England, which reflected the different social and, at the time, non-conformist, make-up of Wales. In advocating our amendments, we are suggesting that there are circumstances in Wales sufficient to allow for more flexibility to be devolved to the National Assembly through the Bill.
      Mr. Nick Ainger: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Sunday licensing laws were poor law and that many football and rugby clubs opened on Sundays, making nonsense of the system? He suggests that there should be a difference between England and Wales, but, in fact, just as the licensing laws made poor law, his proposal would make extremely poor law.
      Mr. Thomas: I do not accept that as a criticism of the principle. However, were I to pursue that argument, I would be well out of order, so I shall not do so. I say this to the hon. Gentleman, however. Last night, we discussed the Children's Commissioner for Wales Bill. There was full consultation on the Bill with the National Assembly for Wales and it is progressing on a fast-track procedure, with the support of my party and other opposition parties, because we know that the devolution settlement has worked in relation to that example. I ask the Minister to say whether there has been any serious discussion of this Bill with the National Assembly.
      Mr. Livsey: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that upland farming in Wales is totally different from that anywhere else in Great Britain? There are 16 sheep to every person in my constituency. The only other place where that ratio occurs is in New Zealand. Lambs must be protected. They are vital to the rural economy, so we need effective control measures for foxes.
      Mr. Thomas: Yes, and that was recognised in the Burns report, which said that those special circumstances, which also occur in Cumbria, could not affect the general move forward that the House might want to make. However, we could do something different in Wales because we have the National Assembly. Other areas in England may have the same problems, and I regret that our amendments cannot assist them—whereas, as I shall argue, they may be of help to Wales and the Assembly.
      The Children's Commissioner for Wales Bill underwent long consultation, which is why I ask the Minister whether the National Assembly has been consulted on this Bill. Last night we learned that the protocol between the National Assembly and the Wales Office—which is supposed to enable discussion and, where possible, agreement on legislation before it comes to the House—has not yet been agreed and put in place. In the absence of that protocol, have we in Wales had the opportunity fully to appreciate what is in the Bill? Be that as it may, we have been able to table amendments.
      I want to make another point clear. The Government will seek to amend their own Bill, and what my party wants to achieve—devolving a decision on hunting in
      422
      Wales wholly to the National Assembly, which may represent a departure from the present devolution arrangement—is not possible under tonight's voting procedure. However, it will be possible to decide here in the primary legislative Chamber the preferred option of Members. If Members wish it, we could accept the amendment which says that, in Wales, the details of the chosen option should be worked out by the National Assembly and should commence and be implemented by agreement with it. That would not fly in the face of any principles.
      I shall say a few words about the different options, but would first point out that, when canvassed, National Assembly Members said that they would support a ban. I offer that information to the Committee. The extent to which our countryside, which we admire and feel strongly about, is managed by its prime custodians—the farming community and, in my area, those who run family farms—has not been sufficiently emphasised.
      My constituency must be one of the most rural in Wales. Only one of all the post offices—there are about 40—is not classed as rural in the Government's guidelines. In such constituencies, the whole wild animal population is controlled in one way or another—in other words, killed in one way or another. Foxes, badgers, deer, mink and rats have already been mentioned; they are controlled—hunted or trapped—and killed.
      In these islands, we are the species that cares for the environment, but we are also at the top of the pyramid of predators. In the countryside, what we do determines whether a species lives or dies. We may introduce the beaver or even reintroduce the wolf to certain areas; the human species is in control of our countryside.
      8 pm
      Mr. Livsey: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Forestry Commission and private interests have imposed on our countryside a mono-culture of softwood forests that harbour thousands of foxes and have altered the ecology of our rural areas?
      Mr. Thomas: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. He demonstrates how we have changed the countryside for our economic purposes. That has side effects on the fox population and on other creatures. For example, in my constituency, a huge effort has been made to boost the population of red kite during the past few years. In one sense, that has been too successful, because conservation organisations have observed that there are too many red kite in mid-Wales—the birds are having an effect on farming.
      It will be difficult to square the circle on conservation issues. Mostly, we ask farmers to do that. In Wales, we pay farmers agri-money through the Tir Glas and Tir Mynydd schemes and ask them to look after the land in a sustainable way. I am concerned that the ban option would take away from farmers one of the tools that they use on our behalf to maintain the countryside which we all say we love and want preserved.
      The real question posed by the Bill is not whether or not we want to kill, because the killing takes place already: it is how we do it and where and when it should be allowed. It has been put to the Committee that the Bill contains only two options—to ban or not to ban.

      423
      Philosophically, however, even the ban option is not really a ban, because it allows certain types of hunting with hounds and dogs to continue.
      I agree with supporters of a ban that what we are talking about in this debate is where we draw the line. Where is the best place to put that line? Should it be at the edge of strict control, so that hunting with hounds is almost impossible? Should it be somewhere in the middle? It is acknowledged that the detail of that option will have to be worked out in another Committee. Should the matter be relaxed and free and easy? Over the past few years, we have been made aware of how the public feel about that option.
      The point at which we draw that line will reflect deeply on our approach to this issue. Is our approach based on conservation, on pragmatism, on making it work or on allowing a viable and sustainable countryside, especially in marginal fanning areas?
      Mr. Öpik: The Middle Way Group is satisfied that the provisions of the schedule associated with clause 2 are workable in their present format, but if that option were accepted, we could have a constructive discussion in the Standing Committee about those aspects that have proved to be bones of contention in this place.
      Mr. Thomas: I accept that point, but there is a line to be drawn in relation to the Middle Way Group option, too—and to say that is not to criticise its workings but to note that it could move either way along the spectrum.
      As the Minister pointed out, the measure is a Home Office Bill. It thus broadly deals with non-devolved matters. However, it would have a huge effect on agriculture in Wales and on the social life of rural communities. It says to the citizens of Wales, "That which you were once doing shall be a criminal offence". Unlike some Members, I do not deny the House its role in that matter; under the present settlement, it is for the House to decide whether a particular activity is any longer acceptable to the majority of public opinion. I appreciate that.
      There is no immutable right to hunt in all circumstances. There is a right to hunt only as long as the rest of society allows the practice to continue. That is what we are debating this evening. Nevertheless, I hope that members of society who are not involved in hunting—I am one—will think deeply about what will happen in certain areas. Do we want to create a situation in which farming in areas that we like to visit, that are biodiverse and sustainable, is further undermined by the removal from farmers of a particular option? I strongly advocate that we consider that point.
      I feel strongly that, as the Minister said, the 40 Welsh constituency MPs—I hope that they are all in this place this evening—can and should be able to express the views of Wales. In his concluding remarks, will he tell us whether they will have a free vote on the amendments? He was rather circumspect when asked about that by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes).
      Mr. Mike O'Brien: It is a free vote.
      Mr. Thomas: I am grateful to the Minister for that information. In that case, my remaining question is to
      424
      Opposition Front-Bench Members: will Opposition Members have a free vote too? Plaid Cymru Members will of course have a free vote—[Interruption.] —I understand from informal remarks that, free vote or not, some Liberal Members will vote with us on this matter. I am glad to receive that confirmation.
      Only one year ago, I stood on an election platform and made a clear statement of my stance on this matter and explained what I should be trying to do. This evening, I have had the opportunity to advance my views. I hope that hon. Members, no matter how they feel, will listen to some of the views and concerns expressed in a particular, peripheral farming area and will consider how the hunting ban will affect that area. If we have a further opportunity to debate the measure when it comes back from another place, perhaps we can consider a compromise that would allow certain practices to support farming interests in Wales.
      Mr. Gordon Prentice: I have only a few points to make because we have debated this issue to death. We have been around the course so many times that the arguments are extremely familiar.
      I support option 3—a total ban—and reject the other two options. Some people say that a total ban is unenforceable. The right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) entered the Chamber a few moments ago, but then disappeared. As he is a former Home Office Minister whose e-mail has been plastered across the newspapers over recent days, I am disappointed that he is not listening to the debate.
      I tried to intervene on the former Home Secretary, the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), but unfortunately he would not allow me to do so. I wanted to ask him whether it is right for a former Home Office Minister to make the statement published in The Observer on 14 January. The right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border stated:
      I think the banning option is impossible to enforce, and once we stir up the police about its weakness they will be terrified of trying to implement it.
      Can hon. Members believe that?
      Mr. Edward Leigh: The hon. Gentleman may be surprised to learn that I tend to agree with the consequence of what he says. This weekend, the master of a hunt told me that hunts are big business; it costs £50,000 a year to run them. Once the ban comes into effect—if it does—hunts will not be able to survive in some underground way; 18 in 20 hounds will have to be put down, as well as some of the horses. The hon. Gentleman is right. There will not be massive civil disobedience and the hunts will vanish. Of course, I regret that—he may not.
      Mr. Prentice: We hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but I am making the point that it is inappropriate for a former Home Office Minister to talk about stirring up the police so that they are terrified of implementing the law. Let me tell the putative law breakers on the Opposition Benches that, when the Bill has become an Act, they must take the consequences if they or those who support them break the law.
      Mr. Hayes: The hon. Gentleman is most generous in giving way. As I said earlier, every weekend in the east

      425
      of England, people go hare coursing illegally. The police tell me that it is too difficult to control. He and I care about the fact that the brown hare population is declining, and brown hares survive where regulated, legal hare coursing takes place. Where hare shoots and illegal coursing take place, they are being wiped out, and farmers and landowners are being intimidated into the bargain.
      Mr. Prentice: I take the point, but all I would say is that the Home Office has been in touch with the Association of Chief Police Officers to find out whether there would be any particular difficulties about enforcing such a Bill if it were to reach the statute book. The Minister will want to comment on this in winding up the debate, but I understand that the chief police officers do not envisage any unusual, particular problems in enforcing the proposal if it becomes law, as I am sure it will. On the spring hare population in the east of England, it is up to the police to do what we pay them to do—enforce the law.
      Mr. Mike O'Brien: As the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) said, ACPO's view is that much the same resources are likely to be involved in enforcing any of the schedules, because substantial resources are currently involved in ensuring that hunts can take place and in dealing with protests and the other issues associated with hunts. The other two schedules may involve resource issues.
      Mr. Prentice: A survey has been conducted on how much police forces spend on policing the hunts. We have replies from about half the police forces in England. The average annual sum is about £500,000, so police forces already spend considerable amounts on such policing.
      I do not want to labour this point, but it is important because Opposition Members talk about the criminalisation of law-abiding people. When the Bill goes on to the statute book, it will not involve criminalising law-abiding people, but taking action against law breakers. People outside the House do not make the law. We are elected to make the law and, if people reject our views, they can vote us out. The members of the Pendle Forest and Craven hunt, which is based in my constituency, can vote me out; they can put up a candidate if they like, and they can circulate leaflets. I am happy to have that debate because I am convinced that my views would prevail if we were to do so.
      Mr. Baker: For the record, I tell the hon. Gentleman that I wrote to each chief constable to ask the cost of policing hunts in the year 1999–2000. About a third of the forces replied, and the total for each was £542,854—not an insubstantial sum.
      Mr. Prentice: The House will be grateful to the hon. Gentleman for supplying that information.
      This debate is not about the slippery slope, angling, shooting, insects—astonishingly, we heard about mosquitoes earlier—birds, the whale population or all the sentient creatures in God's universe, but about what is in the Bill. All the other tactics are merely diversionary and intended to take us off the main argument.
      Mr. Öpik: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      8.15 pm
      Mr. Prentice: I must make a little progress, but I will give way because I am interested to hear the exponent of the third way—[Interruption]—the middle way. That was a Freudian slip, because I was about to refer to the main exponent of the third way—the Prime Minister. I am a great fan of the Prime Minister, and all Labour Members breathed a huge, collective sigh of relief when he stuck to his principled position, which he set out two years ago, and did not move because he is a man of principle. That should encourage hon. Members on both sides of the House to vote for option 3.
      I like being candid—not unkind, but just candid—so I have to say that I was disappointed in my good friend and constituency near neighbour, the Home Secretary. I withdrew my amendment to the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, because the Government promised to introduce their own legislation, and, in the euphoria, I referred to the Home Secretary as a hero. That heroic phase was just a passing one, but I still like him and we get on well together. However, the middle way, which the Home Secretary supports, is chasing moonbeams.
      I am a student of the third way and of the middle way, and it is amazing that after two and a half years' cogitation, trying to square the circle, the middle way did not have an answer on hare coursing. What did the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) say a few moments ago? I jotted it down, because that is the sort of person I am. He said that we still have some way to go. Can hon. Members believe that hare coursing is still work in progress?
      At least the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) came up with some sort of solution. I paraphrase him, but he suggested that hare coursing should be allowed in those parts of the country where there are hares and banned where there are none. The middle way may be short of money but it is not short of intelligence, so why cannot it find a solution?
      Mr. Öpik: I find that attack extraordinary. I have already, made it clear to the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Mr. Cawsey)—I sometimes like to think that he is also my friend—that we have tried to take an honest approach throughout, and I said that there had been division and concern about hare coursing in the Middle Way Group. Furthermore, does the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) not remember that I gave him credit for causing us to focus on that issue? If he continues to lambast us simply for trying to have an honest and open discussion, having taken a tentative position on our schedule, I shall be disappointed because I thought he would be more generous than that.
      Mr. Prentice: This is really touchy-feely politics. We all like the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik). We get on well together, but when I posed a simple, direct question—
      Mr. Öpik rose—
      Mr. Prentice: Hang on a minute. I asked what practical difference the middle way regime on the regulation of hare coursing would make.
      Mr. Öpik rose—
      Mr. Prentice: I will not allow the hon. Gentleman to intervene. The answer was that he still had some way to go before working out a position. He must stop pointing to the Bill; we have all read it and we know what it says.

      427
      The Burns report said that hare corsing was
      essentially carried out for recreational purposes.
      As I said, the little hares that hop about do not eat meat or harm anyone, but the hare is a threatened creature. The Conservative party introduced the biodiversity action plan, which included a target. I thought that Labour Members had fixations about targets, but the plan included a target for the little spring hare, jumping about. It was that the spring hare population should double by 2010. We are thus supposed to be doubling the hare population, but at the same time some hon. Members condone the killing of hares—which are not pests or vermin—for fun. That usually excites a response from the Conservatives, but let me say it again—for fun.
      Mr. Hayes rose—
      Mr. Prentice: I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman again.
      We are talking about killing for sporting or recreational purposes, and that is not on.
      Why am I voting for option 3?
      Sir Nicholas Lyell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Prentice: I know exactly what the right hon. and learned Gentleman is going to say. He has intervened on me before, but I want to make some progress because many of my colleagues want to speak.
      I am voting for option 3 because hunting is cruel. That is not a difficult concept to grasp. Some people, including eminent people such as scientists, say that it is not cruel. The Times published a letter on 20 December last year which many of my colleagues will have read. It was written by Dr. L. H. Thomas of Smiths Cottage, North Heath, Chieveley who is the secretary of Vets for Hunting, a group that I did not know existed. He said:
      For 90 per cent. or more of any hunt—
      in this case, a fox hunt—
      they—
      the foxes—
      are not fleeing in terror of their lives, but rather are responding in a remarkably controlled manner to an entirely natural, albeit adverse stimulus.
      It is only in the short final stages of the hunt that the quarry comes under any serious stress and that no more, in physiological terms, than the extended athlete or racehorse.
      There we have it. He went on to say:
      There is—
      I do not know how these scientists divine such information—
      no apparent premonition of death.
      Can hon. Members believe that?
      The hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire said that it would be wrong for us to bestow human traits on animals. We are not doing that. I am concerned about what we as humans do to animals. I believe that we should treat animals with respect, but I do not t think that they are prototype humans. The Burns report, which we have all read, concludes that there are more humane alternatives. Shooting foxes—lamping—has not been dreamed up by the League Against Cruel Sports. It was official Government policy when the right hon. and learned
      428
      Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) was Minister of Agriculture and running the show at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. The official line was that if there was a problem with the fox population, the fox was shot. That is also my view.
      We hear much from self-appointed people who speak for country men and women. Apparently, no Labour Member speaks for them; it is something that the Conservatives do. The hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Townend), in a most astonishingly racist speech, gave the impression that he and people like him speak for country people. Well, they do not. I represent a constituency with a large rural collar and speak for many country people. I do not, however, take it upon myself to stand here and say, "I speak on behalf of everyone in the countryside", because I do not. I speak for people who share my point of view, as many people in the countryside do.
      The hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) spoke about the abolition of the hunt changing the face of agriculture. I allowed myself a wry smile, because the hon. Gentleman—and I like him too—was an Agriculture Minister in the previous Government. That Administration changed the face of agriculture—not irreversibly, we hope—by advocating the common agricultural policy and intensive agriculture. During the Conservatives' stewardship, 158,000 km of hedgerows were ripped out; yet they come here and lecture us, and people outside the House, that they are the guardians of the countryside, but they are not.
      We will all—each individual Member of Parliament—vote according to our own lights. No one is pulling any strings as far as I am concerned. I believe that hunting's time has gone; it has passed. When we ban hunting, people will just have to pick themselves up, dust themselves down and get on with their lives. I urge my hon. Friends and other hon. Members to vote for option 3.
      Mr. Paterson: It is a great pleasure to speak for the first time with you, Mrs. Heal, in the Chair. It is also a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice), but I shall try to be more concise.
      There were two demonstrations in Parliament square today that involved horses: one was a horse-drawn hearse on behalf of Harefield hospital, and was attended by several hundred people; the second was a demonstration about hunting. One really has to question what the general public thinks is the most important issue. It is extraordinary that we are using parliamentary time on hunting when there are so many other issues—such as crime, police and hospitals—that we could be discussing. However, here we are tonight. I have not spoken on the issue since I had the pleasure of serving on the Standing Committee that considered the Bill promoted by the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster). I shall try to make a few brief points on detail, as the Minister invited us to do.
      I represent North Shropshire, where four packs of foxhounds, two packs of beagles and a pack of mink hounds operate. I hunt, and my family has hunted for many years. I am probably a definition of hell on wheels for the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Etherington).
      Following the Burns report, Labour Members have a duty to produce an overwhelming reason why the ban should go through, because Burns does not prove cruelty.

      429
      That is the fundamental point. Hunting has taken place in this country for 200 years. As a result, we have the most healthy and sustainable fox population in western Europe. Therefore, I will be supporting clause 1, but I could not support it if Burns had given conclusive proof that hunting was cruel.
      People who go hunting are decent and honest. It is clear that they go hunting for entertainment, but they would not go hunting if conclusive evidence proved that an alternative method of culling foxes was less cruel. However, the Burns report says that none of the legal methods of fox control is without difficulty from an animal welfare perspective. That is a great understatement. Hunting works with the seasons. Every hon. Member has missed that point. Apart from the six or seven days that a pack of hounds visits an area, foxes are effectively protected, which allows for a sustainable population. Every other method that has been mentioned would lead to the indiscriminate killing of pregnant vixens, cubs down an earth and healthy mature foxes.
      Burns tentatively recommends that lamping could be the most effective method. Obviously, a marksman—I have yet to meet a marksmen in the country, although I have lived there all my life—in broad daylight, with a rifle, in good weather conditions, would probably kill a fox outright.
      Mr. Hogg: Is not my hon. Friend's reference to healthy mature foxes terribly important? Is it not the truth that foxhunters, on the whole, kill elderly and infirm foxes? If those animals were shot, there would be indiscriminate culling, including that of healthy and young beasts.
      Mr. Paterson: My right hon. and learned Friend endorses my point. In addition, hunters catch foxes that have been wounded by shooting. Marksmanship is not a skill for which most of the farmers in north Shropshire are noted. Lamping would put at risk humans and livestock within at least a mile of the shoot. Most shooting would take place with No. 6 gameshot, probably fired from shotguns, and most foxes would go on to die an agonising and lingering death that is infinitely more cruel than the details of the moment of death in a hunt, which the hon. Member for Worcester goes on and on about.
      Last weekend, I visited the members of one of the gun packs in the area above Oswestry. They kill 250 foxes a season and they are skilled people. They use shotguns with BB shot, but only 20 per cent. of the foxes that they kill are killed outright with the first shot; the rest have to be pursued by hounds. Therefore, the evidence that I have given shows that tamping and shooting are certainly not less cruel than hunting.
      8.30 pm
      Some years ago, I visited a shooting area in the north of England in which there was no hunting at all, and I found a vixen in a snare. That was absolutely revolting. She must have been in the snare for some time and I will not give a gory description of what I saw. However, I am completely convinced that trapping and snaring are hideously cruel. Gassing is illegal and it is revolting in the indiscriminate manner in which it kills and partially poisons other animals down an earth, particularly badgers, which are protected.
      430
      Those who support a ban on hunting have comprehensively failed to address the cruelties of alternative methods. They also ignore the practical consequences of a ban. First, foxes will be less healthy—there is no doubt about that. Yesterday, I spoke to the master of a German pack of drag hounds who was clear that, since the ban in Germany in the 1930s, the fox population has been plagued by diseases. Germany has just got on top of rabies, but it now has a particular problem with a tapeworm, which he described as FuchsbandswÖrm. The worm is so dangerous to human beings—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Worcester is laughing, but the gentleman told me that, in Germany, people touch foxes only with plastic gloves and a handy bin liner, which they then take to an incinerator, because the FuchsbandwÖrm can cause a contagious reaction in human beings that can affect the liver and also can be lethal.
      A ban will no doubt cause terrible damage to the sheep industry, as we heard from the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas), who was backed up by the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Livsey). In the area above Oswestry, four or five valleys each have a gun pack that kills 250 foxes a season. The masters of those packs are adamant that only packs of hounds can flush out foxes from blocks of forest, some as large as 10,000 acres. Einion Evans, the master of the Banwy fox control society, said last night:
      If they ban it, we'll be overrun. It'll be a disaster. The fox will be a hell of a lot less healthy.
      A serious conservation question is also involved. On the hills, most ground-nesting birds, such as curlew, plover, merlin or hen harriers, would be wiped out. Yesterday, I spoke to a researcher who works for Severn Trent at lake Vyrnwy, where the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds runs a large reserve around the lake. It collaborates with the pack of hounds that I have just mentioned and the researcher has carried out a study on the black grouse in that area. He was quite clear that only hounds can effectively keep foxes down. He said:
      For ground nesting birds it would be devastation. If they stopped around the lake, I don't know how we would deal with them.
      Mr. Livsey: The situation in my constituency of Brecon and Radnorshire is far more graphic. Nine hunts dispose of 2,000 foxes per annum. They have done so for the past 30 years and maintained a steady fox population.
      Mr. Paterson: I am grateful for that helpful intervention, which endorses what I have just said. I think that the hon. Gentleman would also agree that tamping could not work in upland areas, because one has to use a vehicle.
      Another consequence of the ban that has not been touched on in the debate is the benefit that the hunts bring from disposing of fallen stock. Hunt kennels provide a crucial free service—24 hours a day, every day of the year—in humanely and quickly putting down injured animals and in disposing of the carcases in an environmentally friendly manner. In the last year, the Wynnstay and the North Shropshire hunts have alone each taken 2,500 calves and more than 300 cattle. A vet would charge at least £50 to come out, do the diagnosis and put down the animal and the carcase would still have to be disposed of. A knacker charges £70 to £80, but a local

      431
      knacker to whom I have recently spoken doubted that the industry could handle a huge increase in work given the extra costs imposed by recent regulations.
      Those urging a ban must address that issue. Farm incomes have collapsed, so who will pay for the disposal of carcases? Will they just be buried at night? It is disgraceful that the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has come out in favour of a ban without a response to those questions, at the same time as the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food puts out literature commending hunt kennels to farmers.
      Mr. Stephen O'Brien: I spoke to the Malpas farmers club only last week and it was clear that the attack on the rural economy that a potential ban represents will be enormous when one takes into account the added costs of disposing of fallen stock. That will be an on-cost to the farming community, which forms part of the proper balance in the fragile and inter-dependent rural economy that is under terrible attack from the Government.
      Mr. Paterson: I agree with my neighbour; I endorse his remarks.
      Many farmers tolerate hunting be cause of the service that hunts provide for fallen stock. Many will not allow drag hounds across their land and there will be a drastic reduction in the horse population. The German drag pack that I mentioned now has only 12 mounted followers and it meets only 35 to 50 times a year, because landowners will not tolerate it meeting more often. That point was made clearly by my hon. Friend the Member for Boston and Skegness (Sir R. Body).
      There will be significant job losses. The hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Caplin) was disingenuous because he cherry-picked the Burns report. Burns referred to 6,000 to 8,000 jobs—but, luckily, the hon. Gentleman was tripped up by my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray), who took the figure up to 12,000 to 13,000 at least by considering more than job equivalents and part-time jobs.
      Businesses near me will be disproportionately affected in rural areas. I know a saddlery business that will be wiped out—it will close down—and a family feed business that will also close entirely Yesterday, I talked to the head of a substantial feed chandler whose turnover is at least 50 per cent. devoted to hunting. He thinks that half his work force will go. There is a disproportionate impact in isolated rural areas. Many blacksmiths get through the winter only because of hunting and I know that, in some areas near me, farriers no longer take on apprentices. A major veterinary practice has told me that it will almost certainly reduce the number of fully qualified vets that it has, to the detriment of the whole animal population in the area.
      Above all, the horse industry will be severely damaged. At the moment animals bred for specialist activities, such as racing, point-to-pointing, show jumping and eventing, that do not make the grade can be sold on as hunters for £3,000 to £5,000. They will go on to enjoy 12 to 15 years of happy life. If a ban is introduced, this floor will be torn up and the only option will be the vile alternative of the Belgian meat market where prices are currently as low as £300 per carcase, and would obviously be depressed further.
      432
      Hunts draw young people into a social network that lasts all their lives. Drag hunting is only suitable for wealthy, aggressive thrusters. [Interruption.] Labour Members may laugh but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) said, they totally underestimate the determination of country people to defend their freedoms. As I was about to say, people can hunt well into their 70s and the loss of social cohesion in isolated rural areas will be a further totally unnecessary consequence of a ban.
      The ban option is thoroughly incompetently drafted. It does not define hunting. It requires breathtaking double standards. It will be illegal to hunt rats with a terrier, but not with a ferret. It will be illegal to hunt rabbits with a dog, but not with a hawk. The ban is drafted in such a way as to presume guilt in direct breach of the most ancient traditions of English law. It is quite wrong that a person innocently walking his dog should be subjected to intrusive visits by police without a warrant.
      Above all, a ban will be supremely difficult to enforce. The last march in London totalled 300,000 people; the next will be a lot bigger. We understand that Members have their power, but it is not possible to run a pluralist society if the majority abuses its powers over a significant minority. [Interruption.] If Labour Members listened, they might learn something.
      As a former tanner, I know what damage is done to cattle during halal slaughter. However repulsive I find it, I would not dream of banning an activity that is central to the religion of a small but significant minority. The proposers of a ban must provide an overwhelming reason for the deprivation of such a large minority's freedom to pursue an activity that is legal in all other western countries except Germany. Before they troop through the politically correct Lobby, brimming with self-righteous bile and spiteful prejudice, they should remember the unhappy precedent of 1936 when the revolting Reichsjägermeister Hermann Goering persuaded Adolf Hitler to ban hunting. We should not create criminals lightly. No one gained in Germany then; no one will gain now. A ban will be an ominous portent of further freedoms to be lost at the hands of an intolerant majority.
      8.40 pm
      Mr. Mark Todd: This is foreign territory for me because I have never spoken on this subject. [Interruption.] My neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire (Mr. Taylor), is clearly in an ebullient mood. To give hon. Members the flavour of my constituency, I can say that it is largely rural, and it has one beagle hunt and the Meynell hunt, which of course caused the heir to the throne a mishap a few weeks ago. I am not sure whether that accident happened in my constituency, but it appears that it was roughly in that area.
      Like my hon. Friend, whose constituency is very similar to mine, I have found that opinions are not bitterly divided. They are broadly the same throughout the rural areas, the small town and the fringe of Derby that I represent. A possible exception are the most rural hamlets to the west of Derby, which, based on my correspondence and contacts, might contain a slightly higher number of people who support hunts.
      A difficulty with the Bill, and a flaw in the Government's approach, is the fact that we have three positions that are, as the Minister said at the start of the

      433
      debate, set out by their advocates. I shall support the third option, a total ban. However, I shall do so with concerns about the precise application of that ban and the way in which it will be implemented. I find it hard to accept the contributions of some of my hon. Friends, who have implied that this is the finished article that will be thrust into play without thought or consideration. Although I would not support the middle way, the defence that it is work in progress and a listening process needs to apply to the third option as well.
      Rational points have been made about the precise application of this law. I listened carefully to my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding), although I did not agree with everything that she said. In my constituency, too, people pursue rodents using dogs, and we must address the need for a precise definition of when one may use one's dog and of how one controls a dog in pursuit of a rat if it goes underground or on to someone else's property. I do not want to make people involuntary criminals by passing this law.
      I have found it difficult to take part in a debate such as this because the debates that tend to appeal to me consist of clear, coherent philosophies that I can grasp, and the positions taken by those who defend hunting and by those who oppose it often contain incoherencies and inconsistencies that are difficult to defend. I am regularly confronted by those who know of my position as an opponent of hunting and who point out that there are many other examples of cruelty to animals and, indeed, to human beings that society appears to accept, and yet we act in this case. My answer tends to be that I am certainly an imperfect human being and that the perfect is often the enemy of the best possible solution that we can achieve. As human beings, we often have to tolerate inconsistencies.
      8.45 pm
      I have listened to much of the debate, and I listened carefully to the arguments about civil liberties, which were well expressed, and for the need for hesitation, if not a halt, to any step that reduces an individual's liberty to carry out his normal activities, which are currently legal. It has been clearly stated that liberties are not absolute. We regularly restrict the liberties of our citizens to do things that may cause harm to others or to our environment and wildlife, which are of course unable to represent themselves in the Chamber. Examples have been given of laws passed to prevent cruelty to animals. Those are all infringements of liberty.
      I do not belittle the fact that the third option would reduce liberty, but considering it in the light of other decisions, I do not regard it as a step change towards a dictatorial society. The hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) implied that a ban would be akin to an act in Nazi Germany. I do not find that resonance in the issue, although, as a ban may reduce an individual's liberty, it must clearly be reflected on. However, it would be a reasonable step because for a long time, and certainly during the past century and a half, the House has
      434
      consistently made decisions that reflect the social mores of the majority in our country and its definition of what is acceptable in life.
      Mr. Hayes: As always, the hon. Gentleman is making a considered contribution. On the last point, does he acknowledge that the shift in opinion since the matter was first debated in the House a couple of years ago has, if anything, been towards greater tolerance of hunting? Does he accept that, as the hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire (Mr. Taylor) was honest enough to admit in his contribution, there has been a shift towards the view that hunting should be allowed to continue in some form or another?
      Mr. Todd: No, I am not sure that I do, to be honest. I have listened carefully to the debate, and I although I hope not to speak for too long, I shall come on to the steps that we need to take to deal with the serious issues. Defences of hunting have been given on which, I must admit, I have had to reflect carefully. However, I do not think that there has been a substantial shift of opinion in favour of hunting.
      Mr. Kevin McNamara: Over the past 30 years I have been involved in Bills of this nature. Is my hon. Friend aware that long before the previous general election there was a huge shift in attitudes towards hunting in the House and the community as a whole? In order of priority by which people would ban hunting, hare coursing is top, followed by deer hunting, which Conservatives Members have not mentioned, and foxhunting.
      Mr. Todd: I dot not doubt my hon. Friend's word. It would hardly be right for me to advise the advocates of hunting, but in their position I would have sought some time ago to discard certain, utterly indefensible hunting practices, so that much more of the ground on which they stand could be defended. Their tactical stance has instead been to make a brazen defence of every practice, however unjustifiable. To that extent, they have been their own worst enemy throughout much of this debate, but that is for them to judge. [Interruption.] I see the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) gesturing—I do not know whether he wants to intervene, but I was not casting aspersions on him.
      The nub of my argument is that, because it is possible to knock down on philosophical grounds the arguments that have been presented by both sides, in the end I have to make my judgment on pragmatic grounds. That is where I stand. The Burns committee provided useful information, but we should remember that it sought to do no more. There has been a tendency to wave the Burns conclusions in all directions, but we should be careful. In fact, the committee was instructed not to advise us on how to legislate on this matter. It sought instead to provide intelligence—sometimes a rare thing—and useful information on which we can base our judgments.
      From that, I draw certain conclusions, the first of which is that, in some parts of the country—not all, by any means—the fox is a significant predatory pest that causes damage, mainly to farm stock. We must accept that fact and think carefully about how to deal with it.
      Secondly, accepting that conclusion, we have to think about the ways in which foxes can be controlled. The Burns committee showed that there is no welfare-friendly

      435
      way to control foxes in absolute terns. All methods have disadvantages and there is no perfect solution. The report inclines towards lamping, but some hon. Members—particularly those with constituencies in Wales—have expressed reservations about the difficulties that lamping in upland wooded areas might present.
      Thirdly, in some instances, terrier work and work underground has produced app fling examples of damage—certainly to the fox and occasionally to the terrier. One Opposition Member referred to the mistaken comparison with practices such as bull baiting and badger baiting, wherein a confined animal is attacked by human beings. Such practices are comparatble to the work of terriermen following hunts. In the east midlands, the outcome of many hunts is that the fox goes to earth and is dug out and killed with dogs. That strikes me as similar in many respects to practices that have previously been banned by Parliament with general consent.
      Fourthly, hounds do not always kill foxes rapidly. The idea that a pack of hounds descends on the fox and death is instantaneous is a myth. Speeches by Labour Members have demonstrated that a quick death is not always the case. Sometimes foxes suffer an appalling and barbarous death. One cannot blame the foxhounds—that is what they are bred to do. It is human beings who have developed that process and we have to be aware of that.
      On employment and job losses, useful information has been provided. The precise numbers have been bounced around this Chamber, but as someone who cares about every job that is lost, speculation as to whether 8.000, 12,000 or a mere 800 jobs will be lost serves only to trivialise the issue. To the individual! concerned, each job is a job lost. I do not necessarily de fend the activities in which those people are involved, but at the moment they are legal. If we choose to legislate according to what the majority considers an appropriate way to control mammals that cause problems, we must have some consideration for the rights and future employability of such people.
      It is also possible to exaggerate the impact on employment. Many people in m" constituency ride horses—from time to time, I allow neighbours to keep horses in my field. Horse culture appears to be a thriving part of the local economy. The drarnatic laic statements that were made about the abolition of hnnting leading to the death of horse culture were ridiculoe us exaggeration. To be honest, my impression is that a large proportion of the horse-riding population in my constituency takes no part in hunting activities. They choose to enjoy the pleasure of the Derbyshire countryside on horseback and I am hardly going to blame them for that.
      We must ask how we can ensure t tat the economies of very isolated communities—Burns identified a few—that are highly dependent on hunting activities would cope with the abolition of hunting. In arriving at a judgment—as I shall tonight—that hunting should be abolished, we must recognise our responsibility to those whom we would thereby put out of work. Their small—often, extremely small—communities would be substantially damaged by the loss of a currently legal activity.
      I want to see the key elements reflected in the work of the Standing Committee that will consider the Bill—I am not bidding to sit on it, but, with respect, I am advising those who will—and implement the total ban, which I am sure will be introduced, with my support. First, we need
      436
      to reflect on the timetable that will be applied to the Bill, and how that impacts on hound welfare. Some exaggerated points have been made about the potential loss of life of hounds. There are employment implications and particular implications for some smaller communities. There is an opportunity for us to consider these impacts and the action that any Government should take.
      Secondly, an important element is that of reviewing the effectiveness of other means of control of foxes in certain areas. The point has been well made that there is a shortage of highly trained marksmen to carry out the task. That should be our concern. If the main thrust of enacting the Bill is to improve animal welfare, it would be wrong to disdain the issue of how that control should be exercised in future. More reflection is required on whether assistance is needed to improve the quality of training of those who exercise the duty of control in the countryside. Perhaps we should consider funding for that purpose in some instances.
      Thirdly, there is the targeting of aid to certain communities. We should not cast aside that responsibility to the citizens involved, however much we may disagree with what they have chosen to do legally until now.
      Finally, we should consider whether it is adequate to rely on various activities being used as a defence against prosecution. I have read the Bill with care. It will be a defence against prosecution if it can be demonstrated that someone was carrying out certain activities that by implication, but not explicitly referred to in the Bill, were legal.
      Some useful points have been made about the control of rats, and how that exclusion would work. As someone who has never defended the mink as a native species of the United Kingdom—I am well aware of the impact that it has on wildlife—I would want to consider how it should be controlled. There is more detailed work to do. I commend the Standing Committee that considers the Bill to undertake that task with rigour.
      Several hon. Members rose—
      Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind hon. Members to be brief. It is clear that many Members wish to contribute to the debate.
      Mr. Roger Gale: The Prime Minister said:
      The House of Lords prevented the foxhunting Bill from proceeding. —[Official Report, 13 July 2000; Vol. 353, c. 1102.]
      That was—[Interruption.]—the Prime Minister. I know that some hon. Members do not like this. He said that in response to a query from me, following three statements on television to the same effect. They were repeated on the record in the House.
      The Prime Minister was either deliberately wrong or stupid. Either way, that gives me small confidence that what we are debating is anything other than a cynical exercise designed to get the Prime Minister off the hook from an idiotic undertaking that he knew he could not keep. However, he made it on television, to the effect that the Bill would be on the statute book by the end of this Parliament.

      437
      9 pm
      I am worried that hundreds, if not thousands, of people outside this place are following the debate and waiting for me to go, as I will, through the Lobby in support of a total ban, believing that the Bill will go on to the statute book. However, all hon. Members know at the bottom of their hearts that there is not a snowball in hell's chance of its being on the statute book, as the Prime Minister promised, by the end of this Parliament. It is no longer any good saying that that is due to the Tory House of Lords. It is Tony's cronies' House of Lords. He created it. No matter how we feel on the subject, it is time that we injected a little honesty into the cynicism that lies behind this.
      Mr. Michael Jabez Foster: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Gale: No, I shall be brief.
      Another fundamental thesis of dishonesty in tonight's debate is what has become known as the third or middle way. I do not share their view, but I respect those who honestly believe that foxhunting is not cruel, as I respect those on both sides of the House—some of my hon. Friends and many friends on the Labour Benches—who fought alongside me, as I fought alongside them, to bring foxhunting to an end because we believe that it is cruel. A woman cannot be a little bit pregnant. One either believes that hunting must go or that it must stay. Anything in the middle is nothing short of idiotic.
      Therefore. I shall go through the Lobby to vote for a total ban tonight, as I always have done. I shall be joined by my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) and other colleagues. That will not deny me the respect of Labour Members, such as the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding), who will go through the other Lobby, because there is a genuine difference of opinion on the matter. It should not be a party political matter.
      I want to place on the record tonight two matters that worry me a lot. As I am on the Chairmen's Panel and shall not, therefore, serve on the Standing Committee, I want to know that the Committee will consider these two issues. The first, which has already been referred to, is the possibility, nay probability, that hundreds of hounds, and possibly horses as well, will be destroyed. I want foxhunting to end. I expect that, in due course, the red-top tabloids will print pictures of piles of dead dogs and say that that is what has been done. I am ready for that, but I am not sure whether many supporters of the ban are ready for it.
      My friend, the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Mr. Cawsey), the chairman of the all-party animal welfare group, quite properly said that he could not take a foxhound into his own home. My friend, the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) said likewise. I have two labradors, a collie, nine cats and two rabbits in my house and I do not have room for a foxhound either. I am already over-dogged and over-catted by several factors. If we cannot do it, believing the way that we do, I wonder how many of the hundreds, possibly thousands, of foxhounds can be found homes. I fear that many will be destroyed and we need to be ready for that. It is no good ducking the issue.
      438
      Secondly, I was delighted to understand that the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will be in the Lobby with us tonight voting for a total ban. I hope that he has spoken to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Prime Minister and that there is an understanding that fallen stock, to whit h my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) referred, will be disposed of. A farming industry in crisis, with farmers facing bankruptcy, unable to employ the services of veterinary surgeons to treat live animals, sure as hell will not be able to dispose of dead bodies that are currently disposed of by the hunt. Those who want a ban, as I do, have to face the hard reality that Judi issues must be dealt with. I am sorry that the Minister of Agriculture is not on the Front Bench tonight to hear what I have to say, but I am sure that he will read it and I hope that those on the Front Bench will realise that at such issues must be dealt with in Standing Committee.
      I want the ban, I want the issues dealt with and I want it done by the end of this Parliament, as promised by the Prime Minister. For those reasons, I shall go through the Lobby and vote for a total ban tonight.
      Dr. Ian Gibson: I shall be extremely brief. I want to take up issues in chapters 5 and 6 of the Burns report that have not really been examined, concerning the scientific work carried out by Professor David Macdonald of Oxford university on the population management of quarry and the work of Professor Patrick Bateson of Cambridge university on stag hunting. In both cases, and in work with people who have disagreed with them in the past, the professors state that science itself should never be—and, in this case, has not been—the answer to the whole problem, as many other factors must be taken into consideration.
      I have heard much tonight about how different techniques are going to control the population numbers of different species. That is balderdash. There is no evidence for it whatever, and science does not purport to make that claim. Much more needs to be done on that front. So much of what has been said by the proponents of hunting tonight is nonsense: it does not control population numbers.
      Bateson and his collaborator Harris co-operated with the Burns inquiry and were commissioned to do research. Previously, there was disagreement between them, but they have now made a joint statement, in which they say:
      Deer live in relatively small home ranges, moving about them slowly except when disturbed by humans, dogs and vehicles. Nothing in the course if a deer's life resembles being hunted by hounds; known pattern of predation by wolves do not resemble hunting. Taken together with the physiological effects of hunting, it is clear that hunting with hounds would not be tolerated in other areas of animal husbancry.
      The Burns inquiry accepted that and said:
      scientists agree that deer are likely to suffer in the final stages of hunting.
      The only disagreemeat is at what point that occurs. A hunted deer is not like a trained athlete who can stop whenever he feels a little pain. An animal runs in fear of its life when it is t Bing chased. In the last 20 minutes before it dies, it is in a dreadful state, with all sorts of bad chemical imbalances and so on. Every scientist agrees on that.
      For that reason, I support the ban. Other reasons have been adduced by Opposition Members. There is much more to do and it is true that there is an absence of

      439
      evidence on hunting quarry other than red deer. However, absence of evidence does not mean evidence of absence. The overall conclusion of the whole scientific community is that welfare problems are likely to arise in all so-called sports involving the use of dogs. In that case, how can we not ban hunting? In modern parlance: do not let the dogs out.
      Mr. Hogg: May I ask a favour of you, Mrs. Heald? I am conscious of the fact that you want us to be quick. I would not want my speech to last more than eight minutes. If I reach eight minutes, would you be good enough to indicate that? I want to be brief.
      If the Bill passes and if hon. Members choose the third option, three things will certainly happen. First, many people—many thousands, probably—will lose their jobs. Secondly, many more thousands will be prevented from doing things that they want to do. I astly, there will be a serious infringement of civil and political liberties. The House should not allow that unless there is a compelling reason for it. Many of my hon. Friends and I believe that there is no such reason.
      I have had the opportunity to speak in previous debates on this matter, so I can put my comments in short order. I propose to do so and, if I have time in my eight minutes, I wish to make four points. First, this is essentially a matter of freedom. We must recognise that, in a free society, people must have rights to do things of which others disapprove. We are not living in a free society if we can do only those things of which the majority approve. There are many things of which I disapprove with which I have had to wrestle as a politician and, formerly, as a Minister. For example, I dislike boxing very much, but I would not ban it. When I was Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, I was asked to consider religious slaughter, which, if I am honest, I also dislike, but I would not ban it.
      Let us take, for example, homosexuality. We will shortly be asked to consider making lawful sadomasochistic behaviour in groups of consenting adult homosexuals. I find that pretty disgusting, but I do not want it to be subject to criminal law. I shall therefore support such a Bill. I also accept that abortion raises important issues of principle. However, generally speaking, I do not wish to see criminal law intervening in that matter. I am trying to make the point that, in democratic societies, we have to respect the rights of minorities.
      My second point is that people like me, who defend foxhunting, are often accused of being the sort of people who would have supported bear baiting and so on. That is simply not true. The proper comparisons with foxhunting are angling, pheasant shooting and other forms of game shooting. I have shot all my life. I did so most recently last Saturday, although rather less well than my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell), with NA horn I have had the pleasure of shooting many times.
      I know that pheasants and fish surfer as the process of the sport is conducted. If one is wholly honest, one must recognise that the comparison with the other activities to which I am referring, which I defend, is favourable to fox hunting. Foxes are pests and must be culled; coarse fishes are not pests and do not have to be culled; and pheasants are bred for the purpose of shooting. Foxes either get
      440
      away or are killed. On the whole, their deaths are fairly expeditious, but that is not true of pheasant shooting, in which as many pheasants fly away wounded as are brought down dead. The pleasure of coarse fishing lies in the extrication of the fish from the water. They feel pain, are not eaten and are often thrown back into the water. To try to distinguish between those activities is to make a false distinction.
      From my time at MAFF, I know that those of us who eat meat are party to processes that are infinitely crueller than foxhunting. Anybody who doubts that should visit an abattoir or poultry-killing plant. I have visited many such places in my life, and I shall not describe the processes that go on there. However, it is clear that the animals in abattoirs are deeply distressed and know that something horrid is happening. If we are discussing cruelty, surely we should focus on the things that really matter, and not on foxhunting.
      My third point is procedural. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall), who spoke earlier, is not in his place—at least I do not think he is. I do not believe that hon. Members who represent Scottish constituencies should be voting on the Bill, as it applies exclusively to England and Wales. Surely it is in the nature of democracy that those who make laws are accountable to those affected by them. If their constituents are not affected, there is no accountability at all—and in the absence of accountability, there is a form of tyranny. The precedent established by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) is, therefore, wholly and utterly right. Scottish Members—by which I mean Members who represent Scottish constituencies—should not vote on the Bill.
      Mr. Tom Clarke: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way, as he is referring to Scottish Members?
      Mr. Hogg: No, I want to press on, as I have put a time limit on my speech.
      One can often judge the propriety of an activity by the nature of the people who participate in it. That is certainly the case in respect of fishing. I walk up and down the River Trent every weekend with my dog. I see people fishing—they are often fathers and sons—and I am delighted to see them enjoying themselves. It would be absurd to suggest that such people are embarking on the sort of activity that should be made criminal. However, there is no difference in principle between what they are doing and foxhunting.
      When I see people who engage in foxhunting, I recognise that I am dealing with the backbone of rural society. They have often been the first to rally to the colours when the country has gone to war, and many of them serve with the special constabulary. Such people are also often deeply concerned with the environment and are likely to participate in public life. They are, as we used to say, the salt of the earth. To say, of them and to them, that the activities that they pursue, like their fathers and grandfathers before them, should be made criminal is, to my way of thinking, deeply offensive.
      This House should be in the business of defending civil and political rights: it is that, rather than indulging our personal prejudice, which is our function. I hope that hon. Members who reflect on that basic truth will vote for the

      441
      status quo, which means voting for clause 1. If they cannot bring themselves to do that, they should vote for clause 2. In any event, they should vote against clause 3.
      9.15 pm
      Mr. Cawsey: I will be brief, given the shortage of time.
      I will vote for option 3, and I encourage others to do the same. I have just one reason—namely, my belief that there are more humane ways of killing wild mammals. I have listened to what has been said today, but nothing that I have heard has persuaded me that I should change my view. I also think that the issue of hunting with dogs is irrelevant to the issue of pest control: indeed, I believe that the submission of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to the Burns committee used the word "insignificant".
      An Opposition Member claimed earlier that the present system selected the weak and the elderly among the fox population. According to the figures in the Burns report, 40 per cent. of deaths caused by foxhunts are deaths of cubs caused by the cubbing process. Cubs hardly fall into the category of the elderly or the sick, and the process involved does not constitute a traditional hunt of the kind with which Members who are present will be acquainted. It involves the repeated surrounding of cubs so that they have no escape, until those participating are inclined to kill.
      Forty per cent. of deaths caused by hunting result from that practice, although it is not printed on the card. It is irrelevant in pest-control terms, and it does not kill selectively.
      I am convinced that the rural economy does not rely on foxhunting. We have heard any number of selective quotations from the Burns report this evening, but, whatever brief we take from Burns, let us read the text rather than just the bold recommendations. Burns clearly said that the question of job losses in the rural economy being linked with a hunting ban would largely be decided by what hunters did subsequently, and that was especially relevant to the ownership of horses.
      We know from the results of a poll undertaken only a few months ago that, when asked whether they would ride less or more following a ban, all but 6 per cent. of horse riders said that the ban would make no difference. Of the 6 per cent. who said that it would make a difference, 3 per cent. said they would ride less and 3 per cent. said they would ride more. I do not think that the rural reliance on hunting is anywhere near as great as it is being made out to be.
      Animal welfare is an issue for me, and for many other Members. We have heard an awful lot about foxes this evening, a little about hares, a very small amount about mink, but hardly anything—if anything—about deer. I am not surprised that no one wants to speak up in favour of deer hunting. I see no excuse for anyone, in a civilised society, to stalk a deer, make it stay where it is and return the following day to hunt it for many hours, using dogs which, because they are moving more slowly, lead it to believe that it has escaped, and to relax. The dogs, which have greater stamina, eventually overcome it, so that when it is totally exhausted, it either stands at bay or gives up and lies down. Then the dogs get it, and it is usually shot anyway.
      442
      If the deer has been stalked the previous day, why does it take 24 hours to get round to putting a bullet through it? I see no justification for such practices, and I am not surprised that no Member has sought to defend them today, although I am disappointed that more did not speak against them.
      There are, of course, alternatives for those who wish to enjoy the countryside in this traditional way. I have seen the New Forest drag hunt, and I am sure that people will adopt that practice wren this ban has been imposed.
      I want to say a little about licensing, and what I consider to be the perceived weakness of it. The middle way option—or, at any rate, what I think we are finally seeing tonight: a semi-complete set of options that will lead to a full set of options later—is not a new idea. We already have licensed meetings. The New Forest hunt is a licensed hunt, taking place on forestry land. Although that hunt is licensed we still have horrendous problems with it. There is still hunt havoc. There is still trespass on private land, there are still problems caused by loss of control of the pack— — it is very difficult to licence for that—and there are till problems with digging out. The New Forest hunt licence prohibits digging out, but it still happens. It is absurd to believe that, after licensing, all the problems will suddenly go away.
      Nye Bevan used to say "You don't have to look into the crystal ball when you can read the book." You do not have to look into the crystal ball of licensing; it exists in England now, and it does not work. That is the only important point: it does not work.
      We have heard a lot about liberties. The hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) said that the measure would put severe restrictions on tens of thousands of constituents' liberties. Someone else said that it did not affect anyone else. I disagree. I shall tell hon. Members why.
      I have one of the largest rural constituencies. We do not have a hunt, but we sometimes have a visiting hunt. One visiting hunt came off the private land that it had been authorised to use. It went through the village and ended up in a constituent's garden. The fox was trapped. The family had to witness the huntsmen moving in, grabbing the fox and throwing it live to the hounds, which is against the hunt's own rules. The family then had to watch the fox being ripped to shreds. They said that the sight and sounds would live with them for ever.
      The RSPCA took statements because the fox was "captive" and therefore protected by law. The society had a strong case for prosecution, but just before the matter went to court, the statements were withdrawn. The people in the village could no longer stand the intimidation and hassle that they were getting. Hon. Members talk about liberties, but there are other people's liberties as well. My constituents want to live in their house and on their land and to enjoy their gardens without having to put up with the activities of the hunt and the intimidation that follows their attempts to raise the matter.
      When I visited the New Forest drag hunt in 1999, as I approached the gates, a large man jumped out and took my photograph. It was not the new-found celebrity status that I was hoping for—I found out that he was taking everyone's photograph. When I asked the organiser of the drag hunt why, he said that the man was from the hunt and was ensuring that everyone in the village saw who went to the hunt and was letting the side down. People

      443
      have a liberty to attend such an event and not be photographed and have their photographs passed around the local community. There is a liberty for those people, too. They are the people whom we should be trying to support.
      Mr. Öpik: I agree that the abuses should be stopped. May I ask the hon. Gentleman a simple question. If he has the time, can he comment on t le thoughtful speech by the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd), who is supporting the same option as him? That is not a trick question. I am genuinely interested.
      Mr. Cawsey: As the hon. Gentle man knows, I take a great interest in all sorts of animal welfare issues. If we can tackle issues through the all-party group that I chair, or through other hon. Members, I would be interested in working on those solutions.
      Sir Richard Body: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Cawsey: The hon. Gentleman has only just come into the Chamber. Some of us have been here all day. There is little time left.
      What about pensioner Moira Lamb, who was walking her dog Candy, who was attacked by a hunt? Attempting to protect her dog, Moira Lamb covered her with her body. She says:
      the hounds were all around us and on top of me. I thought I was going to have a heart attack but I held on tightly because I knew that if they got hold of her they would rip her apart … The whole incident lasted for at least five minutes … eventually a hunter arrived … I demanded that they take mt to a vet. They seemed reluctant and asked if I had a car myself.
      A grandmother was collecting her grandchildren from school. They watched as a pack of hounds tore into the fox. She said that they saw dogs
      ripping it apart in front of us … no one from the hunt was at the scene and … the dogs were running riot through people's gardens and through a children's play area. Many if them were covered in blood … children were fending off the logs with their satchels. The poor kids were terrified.
      The hunt took half an hour to arrive.
      Hon. Members have mentioned sheep farmers. A sheep farmer from Gloucestershire said:
      Over 20 years I have suffered more damage through the activities of the hunt than ever from those of the fox
      That farmer then goes on to talk about trespass, about the local hunt damaging gates, about the death of pregnant ewes, about the trampling of lambs and—this is the point—about the fear of reprisal:
      It may be hard to understand but. intimidated by events and fearful of reprisals from the hunting set, it was only after all these incidents that I plucked up the courage to complain to them. I asked them to let me know when they would be in the area—they refused.
      In whose liberty is the House interested?
      I give a final example from Essex. Villagers in Woodham Walter are sick of the hunt coming through their village. They drew up a petition and held demonstrations against it. We are talking about a quiet, leafy al part of Essex. The newspaper said:
      The villagers decided to protest after violence … broke out at a hunt … and resulted in six arrests.
      444
      The spokeswoman said: 'We want to make it known the vast majority in Woodham Walter do object to the shattering of the peaceful enjoyment of their property.
      This is our village—we should have some rights but our rights are just being thrown out of the window.'
      Douglas Hill, joint master of the hunt, said … 'We don't have to inform the villagers. What has it got to do with the villagers?'
      That is what we are discussing. It is a libertarian issue. People are living in fear of reprisals and living in a repressed state because of the activities of the hunt. When we vote tonight, we vote for a total ban because that is the only thing that will liberate those people.
      Mr. Hancock: I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Mr. Cawsey). He was right to cite the New Forest hunt as a classic example of how a licensed hunt cannot adhere to the rules. That hunt was in breach of the rules as recently as Boxing day, when the only thing it killed was a year-old cub. At first the hunt denied killing the cub, but it finally gave in when three lots of video film shot at the scene were produced. It then admitted that it had killed the cub and broken its licence.
      I represent the inner-city heart of Portsmouth, which is one of the most densely populated parts of the United Kingdom. I was born and brought up there, and I have no connection with the rural areas outside Portsmouth except that I now live on the fringes of Portsmouth. Nevertheless, I am totally opposed to hunting. Why? I am against it because, 30-odd years ago, I went to my first hunt, in the hope of trying to prevent a fox being killed. In the past 30 years, I have been to dozens of hunts, most recently on Boxing day in the New Forest.
      My experience at that New Forest hunt was quite interesting, as there were probably more policemen helping the huntsmen to cross the major roads of the New Forest than there were patrolling Portsmouth, which is a city of 200,000 people. One interesting fact is that in the past year the New Forest hunt has killed more of its own hounds than foxes. It has lost nine hounds, but admitted to killing four foxes.
      The figures for the cost of patrolling the New Forest hunt's 26 meets in the past year are quite stark. A total of 613 riders were counted at the meets, which is an average of 24 per meet. They killed two foxes on Forestry Commission land, and two that went to ground on private land, using terrier men who dug out the foxes and shot them. Police, railway police and Forestry Commission representatives attended each of the meets. The total cost of policing just those 26 meets of the New Forest hunt was more than £20,000.
      It has been interesting to hear the reasons given by hon. Members for voting for a ban. However, we should vote to ban foxhunting for the simple reason that the deaths of foxes in hunts are cruel and obscene. Those who have been at a hunt when a fox is killed will know what the kill sounds like, and those who have seen a kill will know that the memory of it will stay with them. Those who advocate hunting could never have been anywhere near a hunt when a fox is killed. If they had been, they could not possibly justify opposing a ban by citing an infringement of liberties.
      What liberty and whose liberty do ban opponents think is at stake? It is certainly not the right to dress in hunting garb, to own a horse or to ride a horse across the countryside with dogs and accompanied by friends.

      445
      The only liberty that will be removed is the one to kill a wild animal in the most obscene and grotesque way. That is what the debate is about.
      The third way is an impossible dream and makes Don Quixote look positively sane. My hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) could not even say how regulation would be policed or operated. We cannot regulate cruelty. A practice is either cruel or it is not. We either allow a practice or we do not. Some people honourably maintain that they want hunting to be allowed, but one cannot honourably maintain that it is possible to licence cruelty. That in itself is an obscenity and has to be rejected.
      People have been duped into believing that this mythical third way is possible. As I said, however, it would be about as effective as Don Quixote tilting at windmills. It really is a fool's dream. The only real choice today is between allowing and stopping hunting. After 30 years of campaigning against hunting and attending dozens of hunts, I believe that there is no answer but to ban it.
      My experience on Boxing day was that the only potential problem arose when some huntsmen on horses demanded that a person in a wheelchair be moved so that they could go down a path to which they thought they had right of access. Most huntsmen riding that way had gone the long way around, but some stopped and insisted that the person in the wheelchair be moved. That was the closest thing to confrontation that occurred.
      9.30 pm
      There were probably nearly 200 demonstrators present at the Boxing day hunt. I was proud to be there with my family. I was proud, too, to witness the good discipline of the anti-hunt campaign's reaction. What was hideous was the delight that some of the hunt participants evinced at the fact that the only kill that they achieved was that of a year-old cub. That is why we should all be ashamed to allow hunting to continue, and why we should be proud to go into the Lobby tonight and vote to throw it out once and for all.
      Mr. Paul Stinchcombe: My contribution will be short, as I wish to cover only one issue. It is that of civil liberties, which has been mentioned by most Opposition Members who have spoken. The argument for civil liberties has been the loudest that we have heard tonight, and is probably the strongest that can be adduced against a total ban on foxhunting. I disagree with that argument.
      I hope that I do no disservice to the argument by saying that it asserts that a ban on foxhunting threatens to criminalise law-abiding citizens simply for exercising their free will to enjoy a recreational country pursuit. In that way, the argument runs, we would offend against people's fundamental civil liberty to carry on hunting. I share those civil libertarian instincts, and I am proud to describe myself as a civil libertarian, but I wish to put on record why I profoundly disagree with the assertion that I have just set out and why I will vote tonight for a total ban.
      In the modern world, civil liberties do not give us liberty to do everything that we want. They give us the liberty to do certain things, constrained by our
      446
      responsibilities for our actions. Liberty is for ever constrained. It is surrounded and hedged in by our potential liability for what we do.
      We recognise that every day in respect of our responsibilities towards other human beings. We accept that civil law constrains our liberty. We owe a duty to our neighbour to take reasonable care, not to trespass on his land, and not to act unreasonably so as to cause nuisance. We accept also that our liberty is properly constrained by criminal law and that, if we breach criminal code imperatives, our liberty can be taken away.
      We accept also that the duty is owed not only to other human beings, but to the environment and to animals and their welfare. That is why, in certain circumstances, we can be convicted of a criminal offence for causing pollution, and why certain activities and leisure pursuits affecting animals—bear baiting and badger baiting, for example, among others—have been banned in the past.
      In a civilised society, when we assume the right to kill animals we assume two further responsibilities—that we will not exercise the right other than for good reason, and that we will exercise it only in the least cruel way possible. As a civil libertarian, I therefore ask myself three simple questions. Is there a good reason to kill? Is hunting with dogs the least cruel method of making that kill? If not, is the extra cruelty involved none the less justified?
      I accept that there can be good reasons for killing foxes, if not for killing hares. I say that even though, as a vegetarian, I have not eaten meat for 20 years. I used to wear shiny plastic shoes—until my noble and learned Friend Lord Irvine of Lairg, my former head of chambers, told me that I could not go into chambers dressed like that.
      The second question is not whether hunting with dogs is so unusually cruel that we should ban it, but whether it should be allowed because it is the least cruel method of killing. I have read all the evidence and listened to all the debate, and I simply contend that it is not the least cruel method of killing.
      The final question is whether there is, none the less, some compelling reason for allowing that additional cruelty to take place In my view, there is none. It is not a case of the welfare of the hounds—there are no geriatric hounds, because they are killed anyway. It is not a case of jobs, because jot s should not trade in cruelty. It is not tradition, because we should not allow traditions to continue if they are cruel, and it can never be pleasure, because human gratification does not justify killing anything.
      Mr. Robathan: I am very grateful for the opportunity to speak, albeit briefly. This measure gives more pleasure to Back-Bench Labour Members than almost anything else has done in the past three and a half years. The hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Etherington), who has been in the House for eight and a half years, said that this was what he had been waiting for. That is extremely sad, in my opinion, but it is what this is all about. This is a bone to faithful hounds—a sop to loyal supporters. It is to turn out the cc re vote before the election—we all know that.
      I do not usually quote Oscar Wilde, but he wrote, very amusingly, of the unspeakable in pursuit of the uneatable. On this occasion, tint refers to Labour Back Benchers— many of whom are usually quite decent—in pursuit of the uneatable huntsman.

      447
      On Radio 4 this morning, the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien), refused to accept that fishing was cruel or that it had anything to do with the Government. To those who believe that this is about cruelty, let me quote from a report entitled "Pain and Stress in Fish", prepared by Mr. Kestin of the university of Bristol school of veterinary science and last updated in 1994. It says that the society's policy is
      to oppose the infliction of pain and suffering in the name of sport.
      The report refers to evidence that strongly confirms that fish can suffer pain and distress. It goes on to say:
      the case for fish feeling pain is surprisingly complete.
      Finally, it says:
      the pain fish feel as a result of injury is likely to be just as important to them in their own way as human pain is to humans.
      So I say to those who fish but wish to ban hunting that it is not a question of cruelty but of hypocrisy.
      I do not hunt, but I have been to meets. I shoot, but I do not particularly like watching football. I do not want to spend my Saturday afternoons careering around the countryside after a fox, breaking my neck on a horse; nor do I want to spend them with a football jersey pulled over my distended stomach, waving a scarf, half drunk, walking up and down the streets of West Ham or Chelsea and chanting. However, I defend the right of those who wish to do so, as long as they do not unreasonably infringe other people's rights.
      When 700-odd English fans were arrested in Charleroi last year, who called for the banning of football? Not many, but it was a serious incident. How many huntsmen have been arrested in the past 10 years for committing any infringement of other people's rights?
      I said that I would be brief. We know that the Bill will be passed in the House of Commons. It will be passed to cheers from some of the more mean-minded on the Labour Benches. [Interruption.] They laugh now, but it is mean-mindedness and chippyness, and it is very distressing.
      The public in general do not really care about this issue. I spoke to a Minister some time ago—before he was a Minister—who said that he could not care two hoots about hunting, but 300 or 400 people in his constituency were passionately opposed to it. As most of them were in his constituency Labour party, he said that he would vote against hunting. That is what the issue is about. The legislation that will be passed tonight will be shabby and shoddy. It will be cheered by those who should be ashamed of themselves for persecuting others who want to do something that they do not want to do.
      Mr. Bercow: So far, 28 right hon. and hon. Members have spoken in the debate. None did so better than my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington), in opening for the Opposition Front Bench and speaking in his own cause. He was explicit in his support of the present arrangements. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) wisely pointed to the problems of enforcement that seem set to result from the Bill.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples) sensibly underlined, as someone needed to do, the passionate support for hunting that, whether right hon. and hon. Members like it or not, exists and is
      448
      pervasive in our rural communities. My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) underlined the danger, at which hon. Members are unwise to skit, of a rural-urban divide. My hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Townend) highlighted the arguments for freedom.
      From my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) we had a speech that was wise, shrewd and characteristic of a country dweller who knows about the subject on which he speaks. I was especially pleased to welcome back to the bosom of the Committee my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson). My only problem with him, one with which I will seek to assist him, is that he has a dangerous habit of understating his case.
      I have two hunts in my constituency—the Bicester hunt with Whaddon chase and the Vale of Aylesbury hunt. My hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury made his position clear. I shall follow suit and make mine explicit. I shall vote, and with gusto, for option 1. I shall, if pressed and with some reluctance, support option 2, and I shall vote against option 3 with pride coursing through my veins for the simple reason that it is unjust, unfair, improper and a chronic waste of the time of the Committee.
      In this debate—there have been dissenting contributions of which the contributors can be justly proud, including my hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale)—there are certain central arguments, the first of which is about cruelty. Despite the fact that we seek to magnify the differences between us, there is consensus between landowners, farmers, gamekeepers, conservationists and, belatedly perhaps, even political parties that the fox population needs to be controlled. The question is not whether it is to be controlled, but how to do so. As Burns rightly observed, none of the legal methods of fox control is without difficulty. Whether one deployed gassing, snaring, shooting, trapping or even tamping, problems would abound.
      Lamping is not a practical proposition in upland areas. It is extraordinarily difficult to envisage how at night it can be expected that that method will distinguish between a healthy young vixen and a mangy old fox. The truth is that it would do nothing of the kind. In respect of hunting, however disagreeable the fact may be for right hon. and hon. Members whose prejudices are well established and unlikely to change, Burns emphasised that in the vast majority of cases the time between insensibility and death is no more than a few seconds.
      So the simple reality is that the welfare case has not been made. Hon. Members seem to think that if, with sufficient frequency and venom, they spout the mantra of animal welfare and the need to prevent cruelty, that will somehow make their case. They ought to realise that there is a distinction between argument by advocacy and argument by evidence. There is plenty from them of the former and precious little of the latter.
      I confess that I am inclined to salivate about the liberty argument. The reason why I get excited about liberty is that as a Conservative and a believer in the individual citizen, I regard liberty as a determining feature of my philosophy and so do my right hon. and hon. Friends. I make the point now which should not need to be emphasised, but under this Government more than ever does, that one of the curses of our times is the progression from the observation, "I do not like" to "It should be

      449
      banned." That is not a wise, obvious or logical progression. It is not a progression that is worthy of or does credit to a mature parliamentary democracy.
      9.45 pm
      I happen to believe that the problem with most Labour Members—it does not apply to them all, and certainly not to the Minister for Sport—is that they greet with blank incomprehension assertions based on the principles of liberty. They do so because most socialists do not believe in liberty, and the best that they can do is to believe that they believe in liberty. That is not the same thing at all.
      If those Labour Members want to have their way, are hell-bent on doing their worst, and are determined to criminalise a whole section of the population, they can, of course, do so. However, to display the indifference, disdain and rank contempt for other points of view and for the pursuit of an alternative life style, as Labour Members have done tonight, is deplorable in a free society. If people want to hunt, they will hunt. Wealthy people in particular will go to France, Spain, Sweden or Italy and hunt if they wish to do so.
      Hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people stand four-square in support of hunting, but do not engage in the practice. As Labour Members know, I hail from the wing of the Conservative party that pays mortgages and buys its own furniture. I went to a comprehensive school, I use the national health service and I do not practise country sports. I have never done so and have no desire to do so, but I defend passionately, consistently and without apology those who exercise their liberty to do so.
      Miss Anne McIntosh: Will my hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. Bercow: I give way to my hon. Friend. How could I resist?
      Miss McIntosh: The prospect of my hon. Friend salivating is obviously intensely pleasurable.
      Will my hon. Friend comment on the prospect of an action being brought in a local magistrates court in this country for a breach of civil liberties under the European convention on human rights?
      Mr. Bercow: Such an eventuality is plausible. I do not find the prospect particularly attractive, but it might prove necessary. It would be a crying shame if the House of Commons so reduced itself that, instead of protecting liberty by its own decisions, it ended up having to tell members of the great British public that they had to look elsewhere for their protection.
      Option 1 proposes an independent supervisory authority comprising people with real expertise, proven dedication and a track record of knowledge, commitment and care. Option 2 would, I fear, be expensive and complex, although I do not sniff at the motives of its proponents. I believe that they deserve respect. However, I hope that the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) will understand when I say that the problems of the option that he adumbrated were made ever clearer as he progressed through his speech, which lasted for more than 25 minutes.
      Mr. Hoyle: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Bercow: No, I will not.
      450
      The third option is to criminalise, to use the full force of the law to arrest and charge people and even, ultimately, to put them in prison if they do not pay their fines, simply because they do not subscribe to the principles of Labour Members and dare to live their lives according to different it ones. We are witnessing from Labour Members—we see it clearly at this time of night, 9.48—nothing but a triumph of intolerance. That is sad, miserable and deplorable.
      In present circumstances, legislating on hunting displays the most astonishing perversity of priorities. There is a crisis in the countryside—the worst of its kind for 60 years—in which every agricultural price is down, suicide rates in the farming community are up and a real sense of despair exists as to whether there will ever be better times ahead. Class sizes are rising, the fight against crime is weaker, our transport system is more congested, the millennium dome is a fiasco and an obscenity, yet we have a tranche of Bills on licensing, consumer affairs, vaccines, referendums and mental health. Each and every one of those Bills has been regarded by the Government as less important than the pursuit of this abominable, politically correct fetish of criminalising those people with whom the Government and Labour Back Benchers happen to disagree.
      The Bill is wrong; it is untimely and illiberal. The Bill stinks to high heaven and the great majority of my right hon. and hon. Friends will vote for option 1. They might suffer option 2, but they rightly loathe, despise and will vote against option 3
      Mr. Mike O'Brien: I never thought that I would hear the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) described as politically correct. Furthermore, to describe one's boss as intolerant is bizarre, but I suppose that from time to time we, too, have described the right hon. Lady as intolerant.
      This has been a good debate—[HON. MEMBERS: "Where is your boss?"] I can easily say that my boss is someone who will always consider the seriousness and reason of debate—sometimes he comes to the right conclusion.
      The subject of hunting arouses emotions on all sides of the debate. That has been reflected in today's proceedings, but we also saw a greater degree of seriousness and concern as to the rationale of the arguments. That is one of the benefits of the Burns report and the Government's decision to set up that inquiry. The Government have introduced the Bill at this time because we made a manifesto commitment and the measure fits within our overall programme.
      The development of the debate has been extremely good. Several valuable contributions were made today. The hon. Members for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) and for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) made thoughtful speeches in support of their point of view.
      The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) and my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding) support the middle way—again, I almost called it the third way. My hon. Friends the Members for Worcester (Mr. Foster) and for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) put strong arguments.
      I draw special attention to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Workington. He said that the prospect of people with rifles walking around a national park in Cumbria should be considered seriously by the

      451
      advocates of those who were thinking of voting for a ban. We must consider not only our overa11 view of the matter, but how we might deal with any difficulties that might arise. That is a lesson not only for those who may vote for the third schedule but for all those who may vote for each of the schedules.
      The right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) made a strong argument. He used his speech to complain about crime and police numbers—he who, from 1993, presided over budgets that cut police numbers by 1,500. Over the whole period of Conservative Government, crime doubled.
      Mr. Howard rose—
      Mr. O'Brien: Perhaps those arguments are for another place—[HON. MEMBERS: "Give way."] I shall give way to the right hon. and learned Gentleman in a moment—[Interruption.]
      The Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. It is entirely up to the Minister whether he gives way. I appeal to the Committee, on what is an important and emotive occasion, that the debate should conclude in the same equable manner in which it has been conducted throughout.
      Mr. O'Brien: I am grateful to you, Sir Alan—[HON. MEMBERS: "Give way") I said that I would give way to the right hon. and learned Gentleman in a moment. I think that he will want to hear what I have to say next.
      Whichever schedule we choose, the police will have the benefit of the 9,000 extra recruits in our police budget.
      In defence of foxhunters, I echo the views expressed on Second Reading by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve), who has been in his place during this debate, and, to some extent today, by the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson). They pointed out that most foxhunters are decent and law-abiding—they may not agree with the law, but most of them are not law breakers. Foxhunters may seek to reverse a law that they oppose—that is their democratic right—but most of them will not cause a great draw on police time.
      Mr. Howard rose—
      Mr. O'Brien: I will give way in a moment. The right hon. and learned Gentleman should let me finish the argument, then he can deal with it.
      The hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) said that foxhunts are medium-sized businesses, so hunting is unlikely to be carried out surreptitiously. However, the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) told us that there may be a problem with hare coursing, and we shall have to deal with that issue.
      Mr. Howard: Does the Minister accept that any comparison should be made on the basis of accurate facts? So will he accept that the number of police officers was rising towards the end of my period in office; that the number of police constables did not fall at all; that robbery fell sharply in the last year for which I was responsible; and that crime overall fell by 18 per cent. during the four years that I was Home Secretary?
      Mr. O'Brien: I am not sure whether that is a matter for debate now, but crime doubled under the Conservative
      452
      Government. The right hon. and learned Gentleman was a member of the House during that time, and police numbers fell after he left office under the budgets that he set, but let us deal with the Bill.
      Other important issues were raised. Liberty was referred to throughout the debate. The hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples) set out the case on liberty. He said that the fundamental contention was that liberty should not be restricted. It is clearly a restriction on liberty to regulate or ban hunting. One option would perhaps be more onerous than the other, but both would represent restrictions on liberty. The House is the custodian of the balance between preserving the liberty of the individual and the need to criminalise certain activities. The law is the baseline of shared values and obligations in society, and we must decide where that baseline should be set. It is Parliament's responsibility to debate and resolve such difficult issues. That is why we are here; it is what we were elected to do.
      The hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon said that liberty is the over-riding issue. My hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) believed that cruelty is the over-riding issue. Of course, each Member has to make a judgment. The hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire claimed that if hunting were banned, shooting and fishing would be the campaigners next target. He is right to say that the campaigners may make that their next campaign, but the Government are unequivocal on the point. Let me reassure those who may be concerned that, whatever happens tonight, there will be no ban on fishing or shooting under a Government led by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.
      I remind the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas), who spoke for Plaid Cymru, that Wales and England form a common jurisdiction and that the power to decide whether to ban hunting has not been transferred to the National Assembly for Wales. There would have to be a stronger argument than that which he has used today to impose a territorial distinction on the grounds of their merely being different countries, given that they have a common legal system. He should not press his amendments to a Division. If he does, I shall invite my hon. Friends to vote against them.
      The Bill has allowed all hon. Members to have their say today and on Second Reading. On Second Reading, the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) reminded us that we are representatives of our constituents, not delegates, and that we owe our constituents our judgment, our conscience and our sense of morality. Without fear or favour, each of us must exercise his or her vote today, each on a free vote. Others have set out their views. I will exercise my judgment having read the Burns report. I have considered my conscience on the views of liberty and cruelty.
      I will vote according to the sense of morality that the debate has given me. I will vote the way that I promised my constituents that I would vote. I will vote against the liberty to be cruel; I will vote for a ban on hunting. I am sure that all hon. Member know that they will have to decide how their consciences dictate they vote. I now invite hon. Members to follow their consciences and to vote so that we can set out on the road by which this vexed issue will be resolved.

      453
      It being Ten o'clock, THE CHAIRMAN put the Question, pursuant to Orders [7 November and 20 December 2000].
      Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—
      The Committee divided: Ayes 155, Noes 399.

      Division No. 60]

      [10 pm

      AYES

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Hawkins, Nick

      Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

      Hayes, John

      Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

      Heald, Oliver

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

      Baldry, Tony

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

      Beggs, Roy

      Horam, John

      Beith, Rt Hon A J

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Bell, Martin (Tatton)

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      Bercow, John

      Hunter, Andrew

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Blunt, Crispin

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Body, Sir Richard

      Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Boswell, Tim

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Key, Robert

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

      King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

      Brady, Graham

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      Brazier, Julian

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Breed, Colin

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Lansley, Andrew

      Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

      Leigh, Edward

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Letwin, Oliver

      Burnett, John

      Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

      Burns, Simon

      Lidington, David

      Butterfill, John

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

      Livsey, Richard

      Lioyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

      Cash, William

      Loughton, Tim

      Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      McCartney, Robert (N Down)

      Chope, Christopher

      McCrea, Dr William

      Clappison, James

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

      Maclean, Rt Hon David

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Collins, Tim

      Malins, Humfrey

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      Maples, John

      Cran, James

      Mates, Michael

      Curry, Rt Hon David

      Maude, Rt Hon Francis

      Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

      Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

      Moore, Michael

      Duncan, Alan

      Moss, Malcolm

      Duncan Smith, Iain

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Norman, Archie

      Evans, Nigel

      O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

      Faber, David

      Page, Richard

      Failon, Michael

      Paice, James

      Flight, Howard

      Paterson, Owen

      Forth, Rt Hon Eric

      Pickles, Eric

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

      Fox, Dr Liam

      Prior, David

      Fraser, Christopher

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Garnier, Edward

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Gibb, Nick

      Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      Ruffley, David

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Gray, James

      Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

      Green, Damian

      Shepherd, Richard

      Greenway, John

      Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

      Grieve, Dominic

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

      Gummer, Rt Hon John

      Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

      Hague, Rt Hon William

      Soames, Nicholas

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

      Spelman, Mrs Caroline

      Hammond, Philip

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Harvey, Nick

      Spring, Richard

      454

      Steen, Anthony

      Walter, Robert

      Streeter, Gary

      Wardle, Charles

      Swayne, Desmond

      Waterson, Nigel

      Syms, Robert

      Wells, Bowen

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Whitney, Sir Raymond

      Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

      Whittingdale, John

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Wilkinson, John

      Townend, John

      Willetts, David

      Tredinnick, David

      Wilshire, David

      Trend, Michael

      Yeo, Tim

      Trimble, Rt Hon David

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Tyler, Paul

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Mr. Christopher Gill and

      Viggers, Peter

      Mr. Andrew Robathan.

      NOES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Cann, Jamie

      Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

      Caplin, Ivor

      Ainger, Nick

      Casale, Roger

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Caton, Martin

      Alexander, Douglas

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Allan, Richard

      Chaytor, David

      Allen, Graham

      Clapham, Michael

      Amess, David

      Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

      Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

      Ashton, Joe

      Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Austin, John

      Clelland, David

      Bailey, Adrian

      Clwyd, Ann

      Baker, Norman

      Coaker, Vernon

      Ballard, Jackie

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Banks, Tony

      Cohen, Harry

      Barnes, Harry

      Coleman, Iain

      Barron, Kevin

      Colman, Tony

      Bayley, Hugh

      Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

      Beard, Nigel

      Cooper, Yvette

      Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

      Corbett, Robin

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

      Corston, Jean

      Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

      Cotter, Brian

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

      Cousins, Jim

      Bennett, Andrew F

      Cox, Tom

      Benton, Joe

      Cranston, Ross

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Crausby, David

      Berry, Roger

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Best, Harold

      Cummings, John

      Betts, Clive

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Blackman, Liz

      Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Darting, Rt Hon Alistair

      Blizzard, Bob

      Darvill, Keith

      Blunkett, Rt Hon David

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Borrow, David

      Davidson, Ian

      Bradley, Keith (Withington)

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)

      Brake, Tom

      Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

      Brand, Dr Peter

      Brinton, Mrs Helen

      Dawson, Hilton

      Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

      Day, Stephen

      Browne, Desmond

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Denham, John

      Burden, Richard

      Dismore, Andrew

      Burgon, Colin

      Dobbin, Jim

      Burstow, Paul

      Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

      Butler, Mrs Christine

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

      Doran, Frank

      Cable, Dr Vincent

      Dowd, Jim

      Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

      Drew, David

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Drown, Ms Julia

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bndge)

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      455

      Edwards, Huw

      Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Efford, Clive

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Etherington, Bill

      Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

      Feam, Ronnie

      Joyce, Eric

      Fieid, Rt Hon Frank

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Flint, Caroline

      Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

      Flynn, Paul

      Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

      Follett, Barbara

      Kelly, Ms Ruth

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

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

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Foulkes, George

      Khabra, Piara S

      Fyfe, Maria

      Kidney, David

      Gale, Roger

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Galloway, George

      King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

      Gapes, Mike

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

      Gardiner, Barry

      Kingham, Ms Tess

      George, Andrew (St Ives)

      Kumar, Dr Ashok

      Gerrard, Neil

      Ladyman, Dr Stephen

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      Lammy, David

      Gidley, Sandra

      Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

      Gilroy, Mrs Linda

      Laxton, Bob

      Godsiff, Roger

      Lepper, David

      Goggins, Paul

      Leslie, Christopher

      Gordon, Mrs Eileen

      Levitt, Tom

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Lewis, Terry (Wotsley)

      Grocott, Bruce

      Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

      Grogan, John

      Linton, Martin

      Gunnell, John

      Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

      Hain, Peter

      Lock, David

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Love, Andrew

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      McCabe, Steve

      Hancock, Mike

      McCafferty, Ms Chris

      Hanson, David

      McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)

      Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

      Harris, Dr Evan

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Healey, John

      Macdonald, Calum

      Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

      McDonnell, John

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      McFall, John

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Hendrick, Mark

      McIsaac, Shona

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Heppell, John

      McNamara, Kevin

      Hesford, Stephen

      McNulty, Tony

      Hinchliffe, David

      MacShane, Denis

      Hodge, Ms Margaret

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Hood, Jimmy

      McWalter, Tony

      Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

      McWilliam, John

      Hope, Phil

      Mallaber, Judy

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Marek, Dr John

      Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Howells, Dr Kim

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Martlew, Eric

      Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

      Maxton, John

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Meale, Alan

      Hurst, Alan

      Merron, Gillian

      Hutton, John

      Michael, Rt Hon Alun

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

      Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

      Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Miller, Andrew

      Jamieson, David

      Mitchell, Austin

      Jenkins, Brian

      Moffatt, Laura

      Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Moran, Ms Margaret

      Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

      Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

      Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

      Morley, Elliot

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

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

      Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

      Mountford, Kali

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie

      456

      Mudie, George

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Mullin, Chris

      Snape, Peter

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Soley, Clive

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Southworth, Ms Helen

      Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

      Spellar, John

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      Squire, Ms Rachel

      Norris, Dan

      Steinberg, Gerry

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Stevenson, George

      Olner, Bill

      Stewart, David (Inverness E)

      O'Neill, Martin

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Organ, Mrs Diana

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Osborne, Ms Sandra

      Stoate, Dr Howard

      Palmer, Dr Nick

      Straw, Rt Hon Jack

      Pearson, Ian

      Stringer, Graham

      Perham, Ms Linda

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Pickthall, Colin

      Stunell, Andrew

      Pike, Peter L

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Plaskitt, James

      Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Pollard, Kerry

      Pond, Chris

      Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

      Pope, Greg

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Pound, Stephen

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Powell, Sir Raymond

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

      Prescott, Rt Hon John

      Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Thompson, William

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Timms, Stephen

      Purchase, Ken

      Tipping, Paddy

      Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

      Todd, Mark

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Tonge, Dr Jenny

      Radice, Rt Hon Giles

      Touhig, Don

      Rammell, Bill

      Truswell, Paul

      Randall, John

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Rapson, Syd

      Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

      Raynsford, Nick

      Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

      Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Rendel, David

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

      Tynan, Bill

      Vaz, Keith

      Robinson, Geoffrey (CoVtry NW)

      Vis, Dr Rudi

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Rogers, Allan

      Ward, Ms Claire

      Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

      Wareing, Robert N

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Watts, David

      Roy, Frank

      Webb, Steve

      Ruane, Chris

      White, Brian

      Ruddock, Joan

      Whitehead, Dr Alan

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

      Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

      Ryan, Ms Joan

      Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd

      Salter, Martin

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

      Sanders, Adrian

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

      Sawford, Phil

      Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Willis, Phil

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Wills, Michael

      Sheerman, Barry

      Winnick, David

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Wood, Mike

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      Woodward, Shaun

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Woolas, Phil

      Singh, Marsha

      Worthington, Tony

      Skinner, Dennis

      Wray, James

      Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

      Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Wright, Tony (Cannock)

      Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

      Wyatt, Derek

      Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Mr. Ian Cawsey and

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Mr. Michael J. Foster.

      Question accordingly negatived.

    Clause 2

      HUNTING WITH DOGS: REGULATION
      Motion made, and Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—
      The Committee divided: Ayes 182, Noes 382.

      Division No. 61]

      [10.14 pm

      AYES

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

      Gray, James

      Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

      Green, Damian

      Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

      Greenway, John

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Grieve, Dominic

      Baldry, Tony

      Gummer, Rt Hon John

      Beggs, Roy

      Hague, Rt Hon William

      Beith, Rt Hon A J

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

      Bell, Martin (Tatton)

      Hammond, Philip

      Bercow, John

      Harris, Dr Evan

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Harvey, Nick

      Blunkett, Rt Hon David

      Hawkins, Nick

      Blunt, Crispin

      Hayes, John

      Body, Sir Richard

      Heald, Oliver

      Boswell, Tim

      Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

      Hoey, Kate

      Brady, Graham

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

      Brazier, Julian

      Horam, John

      Breed, Colin

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Hunter, Andrew

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Jack, Rt Hon Michael

      Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Burnett, John

      Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Burns, Simon

      Butterfill, John

      Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

      Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

      Keetch, Paul

      Key, Robert

      Cash, William

      King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

      Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Chope, Christopher

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Clappison, James

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

      Lansley, Andrew

      Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Leigh, Edward

      Letwin, Oliver

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

      Collins, Tim

      Lidington, David

      Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      Livsey, Richard

      Cran, James

      Lioyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

      Curry, Rt Hon David

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

      Loughton, Tim

      Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

      Luff, Peter

      Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Duncan, Alan

      McCartney, Robert (N Down)

      Duncan Smith, Iain

      McCrea, Dr William

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Evans, Nigel

      MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

      Faber, David

      Maclean, Rt Hon David

      Fabricant, Michael

      Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

      Fallon, Michael

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Fisher, Mark

      Malins, Humfrey

      Flight, Howard

      Maples, John

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Mates, Michael

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      Maude, Rt Hon Francis

      Fox, Dr Liam

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

      Fraser, Christopher

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Garnier, Edward

      Mitchell, Austin

      George, Andrew (St Ives)

      Moore, Michael

      Gibb, Nick

      Moss, Malcolm

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      Nicholls, Patrick

      458

      Norman, Archie

      Straw, Rt Hon Jack

      Oaten, Mark

      Streeter, Gary

      O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

      Swayne, Desmond

      Öpik, Lembit

      Syms, Robert

      Ottaway, Richard

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Page, Richard

      Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

      Paice, James

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Paterson, Owen

      Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

      Pickles, Eric

      Townend, John

      Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

      Tredinnick, David

      Prior, David

      Trend, Michael

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Trimble, Rt Hon David

      Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

      Tyler, Paul

      Robathan, Andrew

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Viggers, Peter

      Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

      Walter, Robert

      Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

      Wardle, Charles

      Ruffley, David

      Wells, Bowen

      St Aubyn, Nick

      Whitney, Sir Raymond

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Whittingdale, John

      Sheenman, Barry

      Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd

      Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillan

      Wilkinson, John

      Shepherd, Richard

      Willetts, David

      Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

      Wilshire, David

      Smith, Sir Robert (WAb'd'ns)

      Wright, Tony (Cannock)

      Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

      Yeo, Tim

      Soames, Nicholas

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Spelman, Mrs Caroline

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Spring, Richard

      Mr. Christopher Gill and

      Steen, Anthony

      Mrs. Llin Golding.

      NOES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Brand, Dr Peter

      Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

      Brinton, Mrs Helen

      Ainger, Nick

      Browne, Desmond

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Alexander, Douglas

      Burden, Richard

      Allan, Richard

      Burgon, Colin

      Allen, Graham

      Burstow, Paul

      Amess, David

      Butler, Mrs Christine

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

      Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

      Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

      Cable, Dr Vincent

      Ashton, Joe

      Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Austin, John

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Bailey, Adrian

      Cann, Jamie

      Baker, Norman

      Caplin, Ivor

      Ballard, Jackie

      Casale, Roger

      Banks, Tony

      Caton, Martin

      Barnes, Harry

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Barron, Kevin

      Chaytor, David

      Bayley, Hugh

      Clapham, Michael

      Beard, Nigel

      Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

      Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

      Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

      Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

      Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

      Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

      Bennett, Andrew F

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Benton, Joe

      Clelland, David

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Clwyd, Ann

      Berry, Roger

      Coaker, Vernon

      Best, Harold

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Betts, Clive

      Cohen, Harry

      Blackman, Liz

      Coleman, Iain

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Colman, Tony

      Blizzard, Bob

      Cooper, Yvette

      Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

      Corbett, Robin

      Borrow, David

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Bradley, Keith (Withington)

      Corston, Jean

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Cotter, Brian

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Cousins, Jim

      Brake, Tom

      Cox, Tom

      459

      Cranston, Ross

      Hodge, Ms Margaret

      Crausby, David

      Hood, Jimmy

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

      Cummings, John

      Hope, Phil

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

      Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

      Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Darvill, Keith

      Howells, Dr Kim

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

      Davidson, Ian

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Hurst, Alan

      Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)

      Hutton, John

      Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

      Dawson, Hilton

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Day, Stephen

      Jamieson, David

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Jenkins, Brian

      Denham, John

      Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Dismore, Andrew

      Dobbin, Jim

      Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

      Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

      Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Doran, Frank

      Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

      Dowd, Jim

      Drew, David

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Drown, Ms Julia

      Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Edwards, Huw

      Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

      Efford, Clive

      Joyce, Eric

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Etherington, Bill

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Fearn, Ronnie

      Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

      Field, Rt Hon Frank

      Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Kelly, Ms Ruth

      Flint, Caroline

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

      Flynn, Paul

      Follett, Barbara

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Forth, Rt Hon Eric

      Khabra, Piara S

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Kidney, David

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Foulkes, George

      King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

      Fyfe, Maria

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

      Gale, Roger

      Kingham, Ms Tess

      Galloway, George

      Kumar, Dr Ashok

      Gapes, Mike

      Ladyman, Dr Stephen

      Gardiner, Barry

      Lammy, David

      George, Andrew (St Ives)

      Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

      Gerrard, Neil

      Laxton, Bob

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      Lepper, David

      Gidley, Sandra

      Leslie, Christopher

      Gilroy, Mrs Linda

      Levitt, Tom

      Godsiff, Roger

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Goggins, Paul

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Gordon, Mrs Eileen

      Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Linton, Martin

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

      Grocott, Bruce

      Lock, David

      Grogan, John

      Love, Andrew

      Gunnell, John

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Hain, Peter

      McCabe, Steve

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      McCafferty, Ms Chris

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      Hancock, Mike

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Hanson, David

      Macdonald, Calum

      Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

      McDonnell, John

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      McFall, John

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Hendrick, Mark

      McIsaac, Shona

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Heppell, John

      McNamara, Kevin

      Hesford, Stephen

      McNulty, Tony

      Hinchliffe, David

      MacShane, Denis

      460

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Sanders, Adrian

      McWalter, Tony

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      McWilliam, John

      Sawford, Phil

      Mallaber, Judy

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Marek, Dr John

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Martlew, Eric

      Singh, Marsha

      Maxton, John

      Skinner, Dennis

      Meale, Alan

      Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

      Merron, Gillian

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Michael, Rt Hon Alun

      Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

      Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

      Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

      Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

      Miller, Andrew

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Moffatt, Laura

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Moran, Ms Margaret

      Snape, Peter

      Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

      Soley, Clive

      Morley, Elliot

      Southworth, Ms Helen

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

      Spellar, John

      Squire, Ms Rachel

      Mountford, Kali

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie

      Stevenson, George

      Mudie, George

      Stewart, David (Inverness E)

      Mullin, Chris

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Stoate, Dr Howard

      Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

      Stringer, Graham

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Norris, Dan

      Stunell, Andrew

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Olner, Bill

      Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      O'Neill, Martin

      Organ, Mrs Diana

      Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

      Osborne, Ms Sandra

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Palmer, Dr Nick

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Pearson, Ian

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Perham, Ms Linda

      Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

      Pickthall, Colin

      Thompson, William

      Pike, Peter L

      Timms, Stephen

      Plaskitt, James

      Tipping, Paddy

      Pollard, Kerry

      Todd, Mark

      Pond, Chris

      Tonge, Dr Jenny

      Pope, Greg

      Touhig, Don

      Pound, Stephen

      Truswell, Paul

      Powell, Sir Raymond

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

      Prescott, Rt Hon John

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Purchase, Ken

      Tynan, Bill

      Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

      Vaz, Keith

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Vis, Dr Rudi

      Radice, Rt Hon Giles

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Rammell, Bill

      Ward, Ms Claire

      Randall, John

      Wareing, Robert N

      Rapson, Syd

      Watts, David

      Raynsford, Nick

      Webb, Steve

      Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

      White, Brian

      Rendel, David

      Whitehead, Dr Alan

      Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Rogers, Allan

      Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

      Roy, Frank

      Willis, Phil

      Ruane, Chris

      Wills, Michael

      Ruddock, Joan

      Winnick, David

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Wood, Mike

      Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

      Woodward, Shaun

      Ryan, Ms Joan

      Woolas, Phil

      Salter, Martin

      Worthington, Tony

      461

      Wray, James

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      Mr. Ian Cawsey and

      Wyatt, Derek

      Mr. Michael J. Foster.

      Question accordingly negative.

    Clause 3

      HUNTING WITH DOGS: REGULATION
      Motion made, and Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—
      The Committee proceeded to a Division.
      The chairman: Order. I ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the delay in No Lobby.
      The Committee having divided: Ayes 387, Noes 174.

      Division No. 62]

      [10.27 pm

      AYES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Butler, Mrs Christine

      Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

      Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

      Ainger, Nick

      Cable, Dr Vincent

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

      Alexander, Douglas

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Allan, Richard

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Allen, Graham

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Amess, David

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

      Cann, Jamie

      Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

      Caplin, Ivor

      Ashton, Joe

      Casale, Roger

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Caton, Martin

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

      Chaytor, David

      Austin, John

      Clapham, Michael

      Bailey, Adrian

      Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

      Baker, Norman

      Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Ballard, Jackie

      Banks, Tony

      Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

      Barnes, Harry

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Barron, Kevin

      Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

      Bayley, Hugh

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Beard, Nigel

      Clelland, David

      Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

      Clwyd, Ann

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Coaker, Vernon

      Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

      Cohen, Harry

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

      Coleman, Iain

      Bennett, Andrew F

      Colman, Tony

      Benton, Joe

      Cooper, Yvette

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Corbett, Robin

      Berry, Roger

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Best, Harold

      Corston, Jean

      Betts, Clive

      Cotter, Brian

      Blackman, Liz

      Cousins, Jim

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Cox, Tom

      Blizzard, Bob

      Cranston, Ross

      Blunkett, Rt Hon David

      Crausby, David

      Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Borrow, David

      Cummings, John

      Bradley, Keith (Withington)

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

      Brake, Tom

      Darvill, Keith

      Brand, Dr Peter

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Brinton, Mrs Helen

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

      Davidson, Ian

      Browne, Desmond

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Burden, Richard

      Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)

      Burgon, Colin

      Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

      Burstow, Paul

      462

      Dawson, Hilton

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Day, Stephen

      Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Denham, John

      Jamieson, David

      Dismore, Andrew

      Jenkins, Brian

      Dobbin, Jim

      Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

      Doran, Frank

      Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

      Dowd, Jim

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Drew, David

      Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

      Drown, Ms Julia

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Edwards, Huw

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Efford, Clive

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

      Etherington, Bill

      Joyce, Eric

      Feam, Ronnie

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Field, Rt Hon Frank

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

      Flint, Caroline

      Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

      Flynn, Paul

      Kelly, Ms Ruth

      Follett, Barbara

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

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      Khabra, Piara S

      Foulkes, George

      Kidney, David

      Fyfe, Maria

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Gale, Roger

      King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

      Galloway, George

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

      Gapes, Mike

      Kingham, Ms Tess

      Gardiner, Barry

      Kumar, Dr Ashok

      George, Andrew (St Ives)

      Ladyman, Dr Stephen

      Gerrard, Neil

      Lammy, David

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

      Gidley, Sandra

      Laxton, Bob

      Gilroy, Mrs Linda

      Lepper, David

      Godsiff, Roger

      Leslie, Christopher

      Goggins, Paul

      Levitt, Tom

      Gordon, Mrs Eileen

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

      Grocott, Bruce

      Linton, Martin

      Grogan, John

      Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

      Gunnell, John

      Lock, David

      Hain, Peter

      Love, Andrew

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      McCabe, Steve

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      McCafferty, Ms Chris

      Hancock, Mike

      McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)

      Hanson, David

      Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Healey, John

      Macdonald, Calum

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      McDonnell, John

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      McFall, John

      Hendrick, Mark

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Hepburn, Stephen

      McIsaac, Shona

      Heppell, John

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Hesford, Stephen

      McNamara, Kevin

      Hinchliffe, David

      McNulty, Tony

      Hodge, Ms Margaret

      MacShane, Denis

      Hood, Jimmy

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

      McWalter, Tony

      Hope, Phil

      McWilliam, John

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Mallaber, Judy

      Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

      Marek, Dr John

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Howells, Dr Kim

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Hughes, Ms Bevertey (Stretford)

      Martlew, Eric

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Maxton, John

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Meale, Alan

      Hurst, Alan

      Merron, Gillian

      Hutton, John

      Michael, Rt Hon Alun

      463

      Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

      Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

      Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Miller, Andrew

      Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

      Moffatt, Laura

      Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Moran, Ms Margaret

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Morley, Elliot

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

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

      Snape, Peter

      Soley, Clive

      Mountford, Kali

      Southworth, Ms Helen

      Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie

      Spellar, John

      Mudie, George

      Squire, Ms Rachel

      Mullin, Chris

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Stevenson, George

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Stewart, David (Inverness E)

      Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      Stincht ombe, Paul

      Norris, Dan

      Stoate, Dr Howard

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Stringer, Graham

      Olner, Bill

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      O'Neill, Martin

      Stunell, Andrew

      Organ, Mrs Diana

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Osborne, Ms Sandra

      Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Palmer, Dr Nick

      Pearson, Ian

      Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

      Perham, Ms Linda

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Pickthall, Colin

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Pike, Peter L

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Plaskitt, James

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Pollard, Kerry

      Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

      Pond, Chris

      Timms, Stephen

      Pope, Greg

      Tipping, Paddy

      Pound, Stephen

      Todd, Mark

      Powell, Sir Raymond

      Tonge, Dr Jenny

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Touhig, Don

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Truswell, Paul

      Prescott, Rt Hon John

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

      Purchase, Ken

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Radice, Rt Hon Giles

      Tynan, Bill

      Rammell, Bill

      Vaz, Keith

      Randall, John

      Vis, Dr Rudi

      Rapson, Syd

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Raynsford, Nick

      Ward, Ms Claire

      Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

      Wareing, Robert N

      Rendel, David

      Watts, David

      Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

      Webb, Steve

      White, Brian

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

      Whitehead, Dr Alan

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Rogers, Allan

      Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

      Roy, Frank

      Ruane, Chris

      Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

      Ruddock, Joan

      Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Willis, Phil

      Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

      Wills, Michael

      Ryan, Ms Joan

      Winnick, David

      Salter, Martin

      Wood, Mike

      Sanders, Adrian

      Woodward, Shaun

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      Woolas, Phil

      Sawford, Phil

      Worthington, Tony

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Wray, James

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Wyatt, Derek

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Singh, Marsha

      Mr. Ian Cawsey and

      Skinner, Dennis

      Mr. Michael J. Foster.

      464

      NOES

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Hoey, Kate

      Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

      Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

      Horam, John

      Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      Baldry, Tony

      Hunter, Andrew

      Beggs, Roy

      Jack, Rt Hon Michael

      Beith, Rt Hon A J

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Bell, Martin (Tatton)

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Bercow, John

      Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Blunt, Crispin

      Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

      Body, Sir Richard

      Keetch, Paul

      Boswell, Tim

      Key, Robert

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      Brady, Graham

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Brazier, Julian

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Breed, Colin

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Lansley, Andrew

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Leigh, Edward

      Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

      Letwin, Oliver

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

      Burnett, John

      Lidington, David

      Burns, Simon

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Butterfill, John

      Livsey, Richard

      Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

      Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

      Loughton, Tim

      Luff, Peter

      Chope, Christopher

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Clappison, James

      McCartney, Robert (N Down)

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

      McCrea, Dr William

      Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

      Collins, Tim

      Maclean, Rt Hon David

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

      Cran, James

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Curry, Rt Hon David

      Malins, Humfrey

      Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

      Maples, John

      Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

      Mates, Michael

      Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

      Maude, Rt Hon Francis

      Duncan, Alan

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

      Duncan Smith, Iain

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Moore, Michael

      Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Moss, Malcolm

      Evans, Nigel

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Faber, David

      Norman, Archie

      Fabricant, Michael

      Oaten, Mark

      Fallon, Michael

      O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

      Flight, Howard

      Öpik, Lembit

      Forth, Rt Hon Eric

      Ottaway, Richard

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      Page, Richard

      Fox, Dr Liam

      Paice, James

      Fraser, Christopher

      Paterson, Owen

      Garnier, Edward

      Pickles, Eric

      Gibb, Nick

      Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      Prior, David

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Gray, James

      Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

      Green, Damian

      Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

      Greenway, John

      Ruffley, David

      Grieve, Dominic

      St Aubyn, Nick

      Gummer, Rt Hon John

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Hague, Rt Hon William

      Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

      Shepherd, Richard

      Hammond, Philip

      Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

      Harris, Dr Evan

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

      Harvey, Nick

      Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

      Hawkins, Nick

      Soames, Nicholas

      Hayes, John

      Spelman, Mrs Caroline

      Heald, Oliver

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

      Spring, Richard

      465

      Steen, Anthony

      Viggers, Peter

      Straw, Rt Hon Jack

      Walter, Robert

      Streeter, Gary

      Wardle, Charles

      Swayne, Desmond

      Wells, Bowen

      Syms, Robert

      Whitney, Sir Raymond

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Whittingdale, John

      Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

      Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Wilkinson, John

      Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

      Willetts, David

      Thompson, William

      Wilshire, David

      Townend, John

      Yeo, Tim

      Tredinnick, David

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Trend, Michael

      Trimble, Rt Hon David

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Tyler, Paul

      Mr. Andrew Robathan and

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Mr. Christopher Gill.

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 4

      COMMENCEMENT
      Motion made, and Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—
      The Committee divided: Ayes 37, Noes 374.

      Division No. 63]

      [10.45 pm

      AYES

      Beggs, Roy

      Livsey, Richard

      Berth, Rt Hon A J

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Blunt, Crispin

      McCrea, Dr William

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Burnett, John

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

      Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NEFife)

      Nicholls, Patrick

      O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

      Chope, Christopher

      Paterson, Owen

      Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Prior, David

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

      St Aubyn, Nick

      Fabricant, Micheal

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

      Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

      Garnier, Edward

      Swayne, Desmond

      Harvey, Nick

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Hayes, John

      Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd

      Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Leigh, Edward

      Mr. Eric Forth and

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Mr. Douglas Hogg.

      NOES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Bayley, Hugh

      Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

      Beard, Nigel

      Ainger, Nick

      Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

      Alexander, Douglas

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Allan, Richard

      Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

      Allen, Graham

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

      Bennett, Andrew F

      Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

      Benton, Joe

      Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Ashton, Joe

      Berry, Roger

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Best, Harold

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Betts, Clive

      Austin, John

      Blackman, Liz

      Bailey, Adrian

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Baker, Norman

      Blizzard, Bob

      Ballard, Jackie

      Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

      Banks, Tony

      Borrow, David

      Barnes, Harry

      Bradley, Keith (Withington)

      Barron, Kevin

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      466

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Edwards, Huw

      Brake, Tom

      Efford, Clive

      Brand, Dr Peter

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Brinton, Mrs Helen

      Etherington, Bill

      Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

      Fearn, Ronnie

      Browne, Desmond

      Field, Rt Hon Frank

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Burden, Richard

      Flint, Caroline

      Burgon, Colin

      Flynn, Paul

      Burstow, Paul

      Follett, Barbara

      Butler, Mrs Christine

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Cable, Dr Vincent

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

      Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Foulkes, George

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Galloway, George

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Gapes, Mike

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Gardiner, Barry

      Cann, Jamie

      George, Andrew (St Ives)

      Caplin, Ivor

      Gerrard, Neil

      Casale, Roger

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      Caton, Martin

      Gidley, Sandra

      Cawsey, Ian

      Gilroy, Mrs Linda

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Goggins, Paul

      Chaytor, David

      Gordon, Mrs Eileen

      Clapham, Michael

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Grocott, Bruce

      Grogan, John

      Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

      Gunnell, John

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Hain, Peter

      Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      Clelland, David

      Hancock, Mike

      Clwyd, Ann

      Hanson, David

      Coaker, Vernon

      Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Healey, John

      Cohen, Harry

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      Coleman, Iain

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Colman, Tony

      Hendrick, Mark

      Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Cooper, Yvette

      Heppell, John

      Corbett, Robin

      Hesford, Stephen

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Hinchliffe, David

      Corston, Jean

      Hodge, Ms Margaret

      Cotter, Brian

      Hood, Jimmy

      Cousins, Jim

      Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

      Cox, Tom

      Hope, Phil

      Cranston, Ross

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Crausby, David

      Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Cummings, John

      Howells, Dr Kim

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

      Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

      Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Darvill, Keith

      Hughes, Simon (Southward N)

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Hurst, Alan

      Davidson, Ian

      Hutton, John

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

      Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Jamieson, David

      Dawson, Hilton

      Jenkins, Brian

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Johnson, Miss Melanie

      Denham, John

      (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Dismore, Andrew

      Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

      Dobbin, Jim

      Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

      Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

      Doran, Frank

      Dowd, Jim

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Drew, David

      Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Drown, Ms Julia

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

      467

      Joyce, Eric

      O'Neill Martin

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Organ, Mrs Diana

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Osborne, Ms Sandra

      Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

      Palmer, Dr Nick

      Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

      Pearson, Ian

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Perham, Ms Linda

      Khabra, Piara S

      Pickthall, Colin

      Kidney, David

      Pike, Peter L

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Plaskitt, James

      King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilwonh)

      Pollard, Kerry

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

      Pond, Chris

      Kingham, Ms Tess

      Pope, Greg

      Kumar, Dr Ashok

      Pound, Stephen

      Ladyman, Dr Stephen

      Powell, Sir Raymond

      Lammy, David

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Laxton, Bob

      Prescott, Rt Hon John

      Lepper, David

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Leslie, Christopher

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Levitt, Tom

      Purchase, Ken

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Quin, Ft Hon Ms Joyce

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

      Radice, Rt Hon Giles

      Linton, Martin

      Rapson, Syd

      Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

      Raynsford, Nick

      Lock, David

      Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

      Love, Andrew

      Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Rendel, David

      McCabe, Steve

      Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

      McCafferty, Ms Chris

      McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Rogers, Allan

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

      Macdonald, Calum

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      McDonnell, John

      Roy, Frank

      McFall, John

      Ruane, Chris

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Ruddock, Joan

      McIsaac, Shona

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

      McNamara, Kevin

      Ryan, Ms Joan

      McNulty, Tony

      Salter, Martin

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Sanders, Adrian

      McWalter, Tony

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      McWilliam, John

      Sawford, Phil

      Mallaber, Judy

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Marek, Dr John

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Martlew, Eric

      Singh, Marsha

      Maxton, John

      Skinner, Dennis

      Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

      Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

      Meale, Alan

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Merron, Gillian

      Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

      Michael, Rt Hon Alun

      Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

      Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

      Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Miller, Andrew

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Moffatt, Laura

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Snape, Peter

      Moran, Ms Margaret

      Soley, Clive

      Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

      Southworth, Ms Helen

      Moriey, Elliot

      Spellar, John

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

      Squire, Ms Rachel

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Mountford, Kali

      Stewart, David (Inverness E)

      Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Mudie, George

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Mullin, Chris

      Stoate, Dr Howard

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Straw, Rt Hon Jack

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Stringer, Graham

      Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      Stunell, Andrew

      Norris, Dan

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Olner, Bill

      468

      Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

      Watts, David

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Webb, Steve

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      White, Brian

      Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

      Whitehead, Dr Alan

      Thompson, William

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Timms, Stephen

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

      Tipping, Paddy

      Todd, Mark

      Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

      Tonge, Dr Jenny

      Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

      Touhig, Don

      Willis, Phil

      Truswell, Paul

      Wills, Michael

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Winnick, David

      Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

      Wood, Mike

      Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

      Woodward, Shaun

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Woolas, Phil

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Worthington, Tony

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Wray, James

      Tyler, Paul

      Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      Tynan, Bill

      Wright, Tony (Cannock)

      Vis, Dr Rudi

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Ward, Ms Claire

      Mr. Mike Hall and

      Wareing, Robert N

      Mr. Robert Ainsworth.

      Question accordingly negatived.
      The Chairman: In the light of the decision on clauses 1 to 3,1 invite the Minister to move the appropriate new clause formally.

    New Clause 3

      COMMENCEMENT (NO. 4)
      '. Schedule 3 shall come into force at the end of the period of one year beginning with the date on which this Act is passed.'.— [Mr. Mike O'Brien.]
      Brought up, read the First and Second time.
      Amendment proposed to the proposed new clause: (a), in line 1, after "force" insert—
      '(a) as respects England'.—[Mr. Simon Thomas.]
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The Committee divided: Ayes 68, Noes 346.

      Division No. 64]

      [10.57 pm

      AYES

      Allan, Richard

      Forth, Rt Hon Eric

      Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Ashton, Joe

      Fraser, Christopher

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      George, Andrew (St Ives)

      Baker, Norman

      Gidley, Sandra

      Ballard, Jackie

      Harvey, Nick

      Beggs, Roy

      Hayes, John

      Beith, Rt Hon A J

      Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

      Bell, Martin (Tatton)

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

      Blunt, Crispin

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      Brake, Tom

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Brand, Dr Peter

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Breed, Colin

      Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Burnett, John

      Keetch, Paul

      Burstow, Paul

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

      Leigh, Edward

      Livsey, Richard

      Chope, Christopher

      McCrea, Dr William

      Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

      Cotter, Brian

      Öpik, Lembit

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Paterson, Owen

      Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

      Prior, David

      Fallon, Michael

      Rendel, David

      469

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

      Ruffley, David

      Thompson, William

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Tonge, Dr Jenny

      St Aubyn, Nick

      Tyler, Paul

      Sanders, Adrian

      Webb, Steve

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

      Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd

      Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

      Willis, Phil

      Stunell, Andrew

      Swayne, Desmond

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Mr. Elfyn Llwyd and

      Tempte-Morris, Peter

      Mr. Andrew Welsh.

      NOES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Clwyd, Ann

      Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

      Coaker, Vernon

      Ainger, Nick

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Alexander, Douglas

      Cohen, Harry

      Allen, Graham

      Coleman, Iain

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

      Colman, Tony

      Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

      Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Corston, Jean

      Austin, John

      Cousins, Jim

      Bailey, Adrian

      Cox, Tom

      Banks, Tony

      Cranston, Ross

      Barnes, Harry

      Crausby, David

      Barron, Kevin

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Bayley, Hugh

      Cummings, John

      Beard, Nigel

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

      Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

      Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

      Darvill, Keith

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Bennett, Andrew F

      Davidson, Ian

      Berrton, Joe

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Berry, Roger

      Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

      Best, Harold

      Betts, Clive

      Dawson, Hilton

      Blackman, Liz

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Denham, John

      Blizzard, Bob

      Dismore, Andrew

      Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

      Dobbin, Jim

      Borrow, David

      Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

      Bradley, Keith (Withington)

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Doran, Frank

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Dowd, Jim

      Brinton, Mrs Helen

      Drew, David

      Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

      Drown, Ms Julia

      Browne, Desmond

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Burden, Richard

      Edwards, Huw

      Burgon, Colin

      Efford, Clive

      Butler, Mrs Christine

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

      Etherington, Bill

      Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

      Evans, Nigel

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Fabricant, Michael

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Fearn, Ronnie

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Field, Rt Hon Frank

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Filzpatrick, Jim

      Cann, Jamie

      Flint, Caroline

      Caplin, Ivor

      Flynn, Paul

      Casale, Roger

      Follett, Barbara

      Caton, Martin

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Cawsey, Ian

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

      Chaytor, David

      Foulkes, George

      Clapham, Michael

      Galloway, George

      Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

      Gapes, Mike

      Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Gardiner, Barry

      Gerrard, Neil

      Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Gilroy, Mrs Linda

      Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

      Goggins, Paul

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Gordon, Mrs Eileen

      Clelland, David

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      470

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      McCabe, Steve

      Grocott, Bruce

      McCafferty, Ms Chris

      Grogan, John

      McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)

      Gunnell, John

      Hain, Peter

      McDonagh, Stobhain

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Macdonald, Calum

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      McDonnell, John

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      McFall, John

      Hancock, Mike

      McIsaac, Shona

      Hanson, David

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

      McNamara, Kevin

      Healey, John

      McNulty, Tony

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      MacShane, Denis

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Hendrick, Mark

      McWalter, Tony

      Hepburn, Stephen

      McWilliam, John

      Heppell, John

      Mallaber, Judy

      Hesford, Stephen

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Hinchliffe, David

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Hodge, Ms Margaret

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Hood, Jimmy

      Martlew, Eric

      Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

      Maxton, John

      Hope, Phil

      Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Meale, Alan

      Howarlh, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

      Merron, Gillian

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Michael, Rt Hon Alun

      Howells, Dr Kim

      Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

      Hughes, Ms Beverley (Streiford)

      Miller, Andrew

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Moffatt, Laura

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Hurst, Alan

      Moran, Ms Margaret

      Hutton, John

      Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Morley, Elliot

      Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

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

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Jamieson, David

      Jenkins, Brian

      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, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

      Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

      Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Norris, Dan

      Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Joyce, Eric

      Olner, Bill

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      O'Neill, Martin

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Organ, Mrs Diana

      Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

      Osborne, Ms Sandra

      Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isliworth)

      Palmer, Dr Nick

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Pearson, Ian

      Khabra, Piara S

      Perham, Ms Linda

      Kidney, David

      Pickthall, Colin

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Pike, Peter L

      King, Andy (Rugby & Keniworth)

      Plaskitt, James

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

      Pollard, Kerry

      Kingham, Ms Tess

      Pond, Chris

      Kumar, Dr Ashok

      Pope, Greg

      Ladyman, Dr Stephen

      Pound, Stephen

      Lammy, David

      Powell, Sir Raymond

      Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Laxton, Bob

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Lepper, David

      Prescott, Rt Hon John

      Leslie, Christopher

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Levitt, Tom

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Purchase, Ken

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

      Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Linton, Martin

      Radice, Rt Hon Giles

      Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

      Rapson, Syd

      Lock, David

      Raynsford, Nick

      Love, Andrew

      Reed, Andrew (Loughbonough)

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

      471

      Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

      Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

      Rogers, Allan

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

      Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Timms, Stephen

      Roy, Frank

      Tipping, Paddy

      Ruane, Chris

      Todd, Mark

      Ruddock, Joan

      Touhig, Don

      Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

      Truswell, Paul

      Ryan, Ms Joan

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Salter, Martin

      Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

      Sawford, Phil

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Tynan, Bill

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      Vis, Dr Rudi

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Singh, Marsha

      Ward, Ms Claire

      Skinner, Dennis

      Wareing, Robert N

      Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

      Watts, David

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      White, Brian

      Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

      Whitehead, Dr Alan

      Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

      Snape, Peter

      Wills, Mchael

      Soley, Clive

      Winnick, David

      Southworth, Ms Helen

      Wood, Mike

      Spellar, John

      Woodward, Shaun

      Squire, Ms Rachel

      Woolas, Phil

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Worthington, Tony

      Stewart, David (Inverness E)

      Wray, James

      Stewart, Ian (Ecdes)

      Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      Stoate, Dr Howard

      Wright, Tony (Cannock)

      Straw, Rt Hon Jack

      Stringer, Graham

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Mrs. Anne McGuire and

      Suteliffe, Gerry

      Mr. Robert Ainsworth.

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Motion made, and Question put, That the clause be added to the Bill:—
      The Committee divided: Ayes 365, Noes 36.

      Division No. 65]

      [11.11 pm

      AYES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

      Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

      Bennett, Andrew F

      Ainger, Nick

      Benton, Joe

      Alexander, Douglas

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Allan, Richard

      Berry, Roger

      Allen, Graham

      Best, Harold

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

      Betts, Clive

      Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

      Blackman, Liz

      Ashton, Joe

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Blizzard, Bob

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

      Austin, John

      Borrow, David

      Bailey, Adrian

      Bradley, Keith (Withington)

      Baker, Norman

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Ballard, Jackie

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Banks, Tony

      Brake, Tom

      Barnes, Harry

      Brand, Dr Peter

      Barron, Kevin

      Brinton, Mrs Helen

      Bayley, Hugh

      Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

      Beard, Nigel

      Browne, Desmond

      Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Burden, Richard

      Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

      Burgon, Colin

      472

      Burstow, Paul

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      Butler, Mrs Christine

      Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

      Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

      Foulkes, George

      Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

      Galloway, George

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Gapes, Mike

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Gardiner, Barry

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      George, Andrew (St Ives)

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Gerrard, Neil

      Cann, Jamie

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      Caplin, Ivor

      Gidley, Sandra

      Casale, Roger

      Gilroy, Mrs Linda

      Caton, Martin

      Goggins, Paul

      Cawsey, Ian

      Gordon, Mrs Eileen

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Chaytor, David

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Clapham, Michael

      Grocott, Bruce

      Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

      Grogan, John

      Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Gunnell, John

      Hain, Peter

      Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Hancock, Mike

      Clelland, David

      Hanson, David

      Clwyd, Ann

      Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

      Coaker, Vernon

      Healey, John

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      Cohen, Harry

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Coleman, Iain

      Hendrick, Mark

      Colman, Tony

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

      Heppell, John

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Hesford, Stephen

      Corston, Jean

      Hinchliffe, David

      Cotter, Brian

      Hodge, Ms Margaret

      Cousins, Jim

      Hood, Jimmy

      Cox, Tom

      Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

      Cranston, Ross

      Hope, Phil

      Crausby, David

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

      Cummings, John

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Howells, Dr Kim

      Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Darting, Rt Hon Alistair

      Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

      Darvill, Keith

      Hughes, Kevin (DoncasterN)

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Davidson, Ian

      Hurst, Alan

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Hutton, John

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

      Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Dawson, Hilton

      Jamieson, David

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Jenkins, Brian

      Denham, John

      Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatheld)

      Dismore, Andrew

      Dobbin, Jim

      Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

      Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

      Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Doran, Frank

      Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

      Dowd, Jim

      Drew, David

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Drown, Ms Julia

      Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Edwards, Huw

      Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

      Efford, Clive

      Joyce, Eric

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Etherington, Bill

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Feam, Ronnie

      Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

      Field, Rt Hon Frank

      Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Flint, Caroline

      Khabra, Piara S

      Flynn, Paul

      Kidney, David

      Follett, Barbara

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Kingham, Ms Tess

      473

      Kumar, Dr Ashok

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Ladyman, Dr Stephen

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Lammy, David

      Prescott, Rt Hon John

      Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Laxton, Bob

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Lepper, David

      Purchase, Ken

      Leslie, Christopher

      Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

      Levitt, Tom

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Radice, Rt Hon Giles

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Rapson, Syd

      Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

      Raynsford, Nick

      Linton, Martin

      Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

      Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

      Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

      Lock, David

      Rendel, David

      Love, Andrew

      Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

      McAvoy, Thomas

      McCabe, Steve

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      McCafferty, Ms Chris

      Rogers, Allan

      McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)

      Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Roy, Frank

      Macdonald, Calum

      Ruane, Chris

      McDonnell, John

      Ruddock, Joan

      McFall, John

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      McIsaac, Shona

      Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Ryan, Ms Joan

      McNamara, Kevin

      Salter, Martin

      McNulty, Tony

      Sanders, Adrian

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      McWalter, Tony

      Sawford, Phil

      McWilliam, John

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Mallaber, Judy

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Martlew, Eric

      Singh, Marsha

      Maxton, John

      Skinner, Dennis

      Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

      Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

      Meale, Alan

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Merron, Gillian

      Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

      Michael, Rt Hon Alun

      Smith, Miss Geraldine

      Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

      (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

      Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Miller, Andrew

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Moffatt, Laura

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Soley, Clive

      Moran, Ms Margaret

      Southworth, Ms Helen

      Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

      Spellar, John

      Moriey, Elliot

      Squire, Ms Rachel

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

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Stewart, David (Inverness E)

      Mountford, Kali

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie

      Stoate, Dr Howard

      Mudie, George

      Straw, Rt Hon Jack

      Mullin, Chris

      Stringer, Graham

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Stuart, Ms Giseia

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Stunell, Andrew

      Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Norris, Dan

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

      Olner, Bill

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      O'Neill, Martin

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Organ, Mrs Diana

      Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

      Osborne, Ms Sandra

      Timms, Stephen

      Palmer, Dr Nick

      Tipping, Paddy

      Pearson, Ian

      Todd, Mark

      Perham, Ms Linda

      Tonge, Dr Jenny

      Pickthall, Colin

      Touhig, Don

      Pike, Peter L

      Truswell, Paul

      Plaskitt, James

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Pollard, Kerry

      Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

      Pond, Chris

      Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

      Pope, Greg

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Pound, Stephen

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Powell, Sir Raymond

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfiekt)

      474

      Tynan, Bill

      Willis, Phil

      Vis, Dr Rudi

      Wills, Michael

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Winnick, David

      Ward, Ms Claire

      Wood, Mike

      Wareing, Robert N

      Woodward, Shaun

      Watts, David

      Woolas, Phil

      Webb, Steve

      Worthington, Tony

      Wray, James

      White, Brian

      Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      Whitehead, Dr Alan

      Wright, Tony (Cannock)

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Wyatt, Derek

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Williams, Alan W (E Carmalthen)

      Mrs. Anne McGuire and

      Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

      Mr. Robert Ainsworth.

      NOES

      Beggs, Roy

      Leigh, Edward

      Beith, Rt Hon A J

      Livsey, Richard

      Blunt, Crispin

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Breed, Colin

      McCrea, Dr William

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Burnett, John

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

      Paterson, Owen

      Prior, David

      Chope, Christopher

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

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

      Swayne, Desmond

      Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Fabricant, Michael

      Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

      Fraser, Christopher

      Thompson, William

      Harris, Dr Evan

      Tyler, Paul

      Harvey, Nick

      Walter, Robert

      Hayes, John

      Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Keetch, Paul

      Mr. Eric Forth and

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Mr. Douglas Hogg.

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Clause added to the Bill.
      Bill (Clauses 1 to 4) reported, with amendment; to lie upon the Table.

      SITTINGS IN WESTMINSTER HALL
      Motion made,
      That, following the Order [20th November 20001, Mr. Nicholas Winterton, Mr. John McWilliam, Mr. Barry Jones and Frank Cook be appointed to act as additional Deputy Speakers at sittings in Westminster Hall during this Session.—[Mr. Touhig.]
      Hon. Members: Object.

      SELECT COMMITTEES (JOINT MEETINGS)
      Motion made,
      That, for the current Session of Parliament, Standing Order No. 152 (Select committees related to government departments) be amended as follows:
      Line 37, before the word 'European' insert the words 'Environmental Audit Committee or with the'.
      Line 46, before the word 'European' insert the words 'Environmental Audit Committee or with the'.
      Line 48, at the end insert the words:—
      '(4A) notwithstanding paragraphs (2) and (4) above, where more than two committees or sub-committees appointed under this order meet concurrently in accordance with paragraph (4)(e) above, the quorum of each such committee or sub-committee shall be two.'—[Mr. Touhig.]
      Hon. Members: Object.

      BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
      Motion made,
      That Private Members' Bills shall have precedence over Government business on 2nd and 9th February, 9th, 16th, 23rd and 30th March, 6th and 27th April, 11th and 18th May, 8th and 15th June and 20th July.—[Mr. Touhig.]
      Hon. Members: Object.

      ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE
      Motion made,
      That Mr. Stephen Hepburn be discharged from the Administration Committee and Caroline Flint be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Mc William.]
      Hon. Members: Object.

  Dystonia
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Touhig.]
  11.25 pm
  Mr. Mike Wood: I am delighted at the end of this interesting and important parliamentary day to have the opportunity to raise the important issue of dystonia. For those who do not know, it is a neurological movement disorder, or a series of disorders, that possibly derives from a chemical imbalance in the brain or, more specifically, in that part of the brain, the basal ganglia, that regulates muscle activity.
  The imbalance can be hereditary, but in other cases it apparently comes about as the result of an accident or illness. Muscles can begin to develop, as it were, a life of their own, causing uncontrollable twitching, tremors and other abnormal movements. The condition can affect the whole body or—it is just as debilitating and painful—it can be focal dystonia and attack one particular part of the sufferer's body such as the tongue, the mouth, the head, the neck, the arms, the hands or the muscles around the eyes.
  Dystonia in children can be particularly cruel. The disease is generally progressive and it can leave a child with an able mind locked in a seriously disabled and contorted body and, sometimes, unable even to speak or communicate properly.
  In a recent letter to my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes), Professor Gosling points out that, even though there are 40,000 diagnosed cases of dystonia in this country and many more that are undiagnosed, dystonia does not have quite the high profile associated with its sister diseases, such as Parkinson's disease, multiple sclerosis and motor neurone disease.
  There is a national society for dystonia sufferers and their carers and the disease's low profile is something that my local group, the West Yorkshire Dystonia Society, has decided, to its great credit, to do something about. It feels that the disease's lack of profile explains why so few resources in the national health service are given over to the diagnosis and treatment of sufferers and why there is so little research into the causes of this crippling condition and into a cure.
  In fact, the position appears to be worse than that. Many sufferers of dystonia who have been in touch with me in recent weeks remained undiagnosed for an average of two to three years. In one memorable case, a patient was undiagnosed for 30 years, which must be some kind of record. I regret to say that, in the period before diagnosis has been confirmed, many patients report very poor treatment at the hands of their GPs and other medical professionals.
  I shall illustrate my point by referring to my constituent, Margaret Burke. She and her husband and carer, John, are two of the stalwarts of my local dystonia society. Margaret was originally told by her GP to stop wasting his time. She was a stupid woman, he said, and appeared to need something to worry about now that her children had left home. She persisted, but it took more than two years for her to be referred to a specialist, but then only to a psychiatrist, because the GP was still of the opinion that whatever she suffered was, at worst,

  477
  a psychological problem. He thought that she was imagining the feeling that her head was about to twist off her shoulders.
  Several years later, Margaret has undergone six operations under the only British surgeon who carries out a procedure to alleviate the effects of what she really was, and is, suffering from—namely, spasmodic torticollis, which is an uncontrollable twisting of the neck muscles. Is it any wonder that, when people who are so afflicted—there are probably more than 100,000 of them in this country—meet with such a response, which adds to the distress caused by their painful condition, they are brought to the depths of despair? One sufferer who spoke to me said that she had had a nervous breakdown, which she attributed to the frustration caused not only by seeing her body deteriorate but by being treated in that fashion.
  Another constituent, Elizabeth Price, like Mrs. Burke, agreed willingly that I should relay her details to the House so as to allow those for whom the condition is a new phenomenon fully to understand its dimensions. Miss Price was a midwife for 14 years, a job which she loved and from which she got enormous satisfaction, but she had to retire at 31. She is now wheelchair-bound and describes herself as severely disabled. She can no longer drive; indeed, she is housebound and has to be cared for by her mother, who in turn had to give up her own job so that she could perform that function 24 hours a day, seven days a week.
  Miss Price considers herself fortunate that, after many years, she now receives treatment for her severe pain from Dr. Higgins at Kirkwood, our first-rate local hospice. Initially, however, she also had difficulty in having her complaints of feeling unwell taken seriously. She contends that many of the medics whom she saw were ignorant of her condition, under-resourced, with little time and they were unavailable to her during her emergencies or at times of relapse. Appointments were often six months apart with little monitoring of her progress or of her reaction at one stage to new and revolutionary drugs. She has no electric wheelchair, which would aid her independence, and the local social services department has still to agree to the adaptations to her mother's home which would free her from imprisonment on the ground floor.
  To state the obvious, people with such distressing, painful conditions deserve better, so without detaining the House too much longer I ask the Minister for the following assurances: first, that all GPs will receive improved training in diagnosing dystonia; secondly, that the improved training will then be extended to other relevant medical staff up to and including neurologists; and thirdly, that her Department will publish the amount given annually by the Government to fund research into movement disorders in sufficient detail for it to be clear how much of that cash will help dystonia sufferers.
  Fourthly, will the Minister encourage the Secretary of State to meet Dystonia Society officials, as I asked him to do some time ago, to hear at first hand of their concerns as the poor relatives of the movement disorders family, as they consider themselves? Finally, will the Minister consider being the keynote speaker at the inaugural meeting of the all-party dystonia group, which I intend to establish?
  11.33 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Ms Gisela Stuart): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Spen (Mr. Wood) on selecting this subject for debate. As he said, this has in many ways been a memorable parliamentary day.
  Good health is what people treasure most. Dystonia may not be a disease that many will be familiar with, but for some it will have had a major impact on their everyday lives. The Dystonia Society estimates that some 38,000 people in the UK suffer from the condition. We need to ensure that the national health service is sensitive to the needs of anyone who suffers from dystonia.
  I shall outline the origins and treatment of dystonia, which are relevant to the specific questions that my hon. Friend asked. I shall then say more about the research into its causes which we are undertaking, and how our modernisation of the NHS will help all patients, including those with this debilitating disease.
  My hon. Friend has graphically outlined the experience of two of his constituents. I shall not cover the same ground other than to say that the effects on the body can be diverse. Although dystonia is not fatal, it is a chronic disorder and prognosis is difficult to predict. Furthermore, it may begin at any time during childhood, adolescence or adulthood.
  It is important to note that, to date, no test to confirm diagnosis of dystonia has been developed. Instead, the diagnosis of dystonia rests solely on the information from the affected individual and the physical and neurological examination. Therefore, correctly to diagnose dystonia, doctors must be able to recognise the physical signs and be familiar with the symptoms. I am aware that it is often misdiagnosed—in the case of one of my hon. Friend's constituents, seriously so—and mistaken for Parkinson's disease.
  The cause of dystonia is not currently known, although the DYT1 gene is thought to be implicated in some cases and cerebral accidents such as birth injuries and stroke in others. In addition, we know that neuroleptic drugs can produce dystonic symptoms. I understand my hon. Friend's concerns and I appreciate how difficult it is for doctors dealing with cases in which there is no simple test to confirm diagnosis. Let us not forget the patients, who quite rightly want an explanation for the illness they are facing and how it can best be treated. That is why we must strive to take the work forward. I shall talk about current research to improve our knowledge and therefore provide more effective treatment.
  Although there is not yet a cure for dystonia, there are a number of treatments that reduce the symptoms and help to restore patients to many daily living activities. Treatment for dystonia is designed to lessen the symptoms of spasms, pain and disturbed posture and function. Most therapies are symptomatic, attempting to cover up or release the dystonic spasms. No single strategy will be appropriate for every case, so even after diagnosis, which as we know is sometimes extremely difficult, any treatment plan needs to be carefully structured to meet the needs of the individual patient. The goal of any treatment is to achieve the greatest benefits while incurring the fewest risks and side-effects.
  The approach to treatment of dystonia is usually three-tiered, involving oral medications, botulinum toxin injections in small, safe doses and, in some cases, surgery.

  479
  Those therapies may be used alone or in combination and interventions may be made to maintain mobility. The introduction in the late 1980s of botulinum toxin—a biological product—has made a considerable difference to the lives of people with dystonia. The toxin, which is injected into the muscles, acts as a nerve-blocker and prevents the release of acetylcholine, which is a neurotransmitter that activates muscle spasms. The effects of the treatment generally last for a few months, but then it needs to be repeated.
  Surgery is generally considered when patients are no longer receptive to other treatments, which can lose their effect over time. The surgical techniques used are generally intended to interrupt the neural pathways responsible for the abnormal movements of dystonia patients. Recently, in a new development mentioned by my hon. Friend, surgeons have started to use deep brain stimulation—also used in Parkinson's disease—with some success.
  Although we are treating dystonia with some success, there are limitations owing to our lack of a full scientific understanding of the disease. I firmly believe that long-term research holds the key to finding a cure for dystonia, so I shall now address that area, in response to the specific questions my hon. Friend raised.
  The role of genetic factors in dystonia has been the focus of research over the last decade in a number of countries. In England, the main Government agency for research into the causes of, and treatments for, disease is the Medical Research Council. The MRC receives its funding via the Department of Trade and Industry. In 1999–2000, the MRC provided more than £3 million for research into movement disorders, which include dystonia. My hon. Friend asked for a breakdown of the figures specific to dystonia, but the lack of clarity about the specific origins of the disease and the fact that it has a lot in common with other diseases means that the research package covers the whole group of diseases. The research will improve our understanding of those conditions and aid the development of treatments for dystonia and related movement disorders such as Parkinson's disease, Huntington's disease and multiple sclerosis.
  In the five years from 1994 to 1999, the MRC invested more than £8 million into research related to dystonia. I think my hon. Friend will agree that that is a substantial investment and shows that we are serious about trying to establish the causes of, and possible treatments for, dystonia.
  I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the report from the chief medical officer's expert group entitled "Stem Cell Research: Medical Progress with Responsibility". It recognises that the early research on stem cells is exciting and provides a real hope of new treatments becoming available in a few years for people with chronic diseases. Many people, including patients and their families who shoulder the burden of these diseases, support the report, recognising the considerable impact that it could have on their health and their lives in the long run.
  I hope that, over time, this research will provide a breakthrough in the understanding and treatment of genetic diseases. We must be realistic about this process, however, and make sure that people understand that scientists are not offering us immediate solutions. This research approach is no magic wand. What works on a
  480
  mouse in a laboratory may not have the same effect on a human being. It may well be many years before the work bears fruit.
  Given these limitations—we are making significant investment into research, but we may not have an immediate answer both to finding the causes and to treatment—it is important to consider how we disseminate information that is available to professionals and to patients. It is an exciting time overall within the NHS. We are looking forward not only to new money, but to modernisation of the way that the NHS provides care. Our objective is for the NHS to be faster, fairer and more convenient. It will be more patient centred with patients having a greater involvement in service delivery. A good example of that is NHS Direct.
  NHS Direct is extending care into the home. It is helping people take more responsibility for their own health and empowering them to become more proactive partners in their health care.
  NHS Direct operates on a simple principle, which is to give people fast and convenient advice and information that enables them to look after themselves and their families when it is safe for them to do so. However, providing the information and advice that people need to enable them to share the responsibility for their own health does not end with the NHS Direct telephone service. I have ensured that NHS advice, should anyone inquire about dystonia, will refer callers to the relevant bodies.
  More importantly, we have found that when people want more information on health, the internet is an extremely powerful tool. According to one recent survey, about 25 per cent, of adults in Britain use the internet in any one month. I recall that the most common topic that people search for on the internet, apart from sex and religion, is health. Clearly it is something that concerns the public.
  One of the dangers of the internet is that the wealth of information that it provides is not necessarily reliable. With that in mind, we launched NHS Direct online in December 1999. It is the first comprehensive gateway to health information in the UK. Not only does it provide an electronic health care guide, it includes information about the NHS and how to use its services, facts and advice on health stories in the national media and pages on 200 specific diseases and their treatment.
  NHS Direct online acts as a safe gateway to other health information and databases on the web. Information on health is one of the main reasons why people use the internet, but as I have said it is not always reliable.
  When my hon. Friend chose dystonia as the subject for the debate, I entered it in the search field of the NHS Direct website and, to my delight, I found much useful information there on dystonia. It was there before my hon. Friend raised the issue. I would have been happy to say that as a result of the debate we are putting the information on the website, but to my surprise it was already there. It included details of support organisations, and evaluated patient information.
  Our NHS Direct information points will also include information on dystonia. The information kiosks provide access in public places when people do not have access to the internet in their homes. There will be 153 NHS Direct information points in place this financial year in locations such as libraries, community centres,

  481
  pharmacies, supermarkets and walk-in centres. The NHS plan includes the commitment more than 500 NHS Direct information points will be in place by 2004.
  I checked whether there was an information point within my hon. Friend's constituency, and found that there is not one yet. The closest ones are at Dewsbury and Wakefield libraries.
  NHS Direct is a key strand in our modernisation of the health service. It is a good example of how new technology can be harnessed to deliver real benefits to the public and help to address their need for information and advice about health and health services.
  I would have been delighted if, as a result of my hon. Friend initiating the debate and putting the issue on the record, I could give a clear sign of where research may deliver some solutions. Unfortunately, I cannot do that. I can say that we are committed to finding a way and that the financial investment is there. In the meantime, all we can do is work on improving the treatment and raise awareness.
  General practitioners in particular may see only one or two cases of dystonia in their professional life, but they may be helped by an interesting development that I have seen in some medical schools where video tapes of patients are used as teaching aids. Technology will help us to raise awareness, as will debates such as this, and an all-party group, to which my hon. Friend referred, will also be valuable.
  I thank my hon. Friend for securing the debate and I hope that he will get in touch with the Department so that a meeting can be arranged. Some 38,000 people suffer from dystonia and I hope that, in future, we shall be able to give them a more hopeful message.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at fourteen minutes to Twelve midnight.

  Deferred Divisions

    HUMAN RIGHTS (JOINT COMMITTEE)
    That—
    the Lords Message [12th July 2000] communicating a Resolution relating to Human Rights (Joint Committee), be now considered;
    this House concurs with the Lords in the said Resolution; and
    the following Standing Order be made:

    (1) There shall be a Select Committee, to consist of six Members, to join with the Committee appointed by the Lords as the Joint Committee on Human Rights.

    (2) The Committee shall consider—

    (a) matters relating to human rights in the United Kingdom (but excluding consideration of individual cases);

    (b) proposals for remedial orders, draft remedial orders and remedial orders made under Section 10 of and laid under Schedule 2 to the Human Rights Act 1998; and

    (c) in respect of draft remedial orders and remedial orders, whether the special attention of the House should be drawn to them on any of the grounds specified in Standing Order No. 151 (Statutory Instruments (Joint Committee));

    (3) The Committee shall report to the House—

    (a) in relation to any document containing proposals laid before the House under paragraph 3 of the said Schedule 2, its recommendation whether a draft order in the same terms as the proposals should be laid before the House; or

    (b) in relation to any draft order laid under paragraph 2 of the said Schedule 2, its recommendation whether the draft Order should be approved;

    and the Committee may report to the House on any matter arising from its consideration of the said proposals or draft orders.

    (4) The Committee shall report to the House in respect of any original order laid under paragraph 4 of the said Schedule 2, its recommendation whether—

    (a) the order should be approved in the form in which it was originally laid before Parliament; or

    (b) that the order should be replaced by a new order modifying the provisions of the original order; or

    (c) that the order should not be approved,

    and the Committee may report to the House on any matter arising from its consideration of the said order or any replacement order.

    (5) The quorum of the committee shall be three.

    (6) Unless the House otherwise orders, each Member nominated to the committee shall continue to be a member of it for the remainder of the Parliament.

    (7) The committee shall have power—

    (a) to send for persons, papers and records, to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House, to adjourn from place to place within the United Kingdom, to adjourn to institutions of the Council of Europe outside the United Kingdom no more than four times in any calendar year, and to report from time to time; and

    (b) to appoint specialist advisers either to supply information which is not readily available or to elucidate matters of complexity within the committee's order of reference.

    The House divided: Ayes 486, Noes 3.

    Division No. 58]

    AYES

    Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

    Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

    Ainger, Nick

    Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

    Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

    Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

    Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

    Ashton, Joe

    Allan, Richard

    Atherton, Ms Candy

    Allen, Graham

    Atkins, Charlotte

    Amess, David

    Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

    483

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Coffey, Ms Ann

    Austin, John

    Cohen, Harry

    Bailey, Adrian

    Coleman, Iain

    Baker, Norman

    Colman, Tony

    Baldry, Tony

    Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

    Banks, Tony

    Cooper, Yvette

    Barnes, Harry

    Corbett, Robin

    Barron, Kevin

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Bayley, Hugh

    Cormack, Sir Patrick

    Beard, Nigel

    Cotter, Brian

    Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

    Cousins, Jim

    Begg, Miss Anne

    Cox, Tom

    Beggs, Roy

    Cran, James

    Berth, Rt Hon A J

    Cranston, Ross

    Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

    Crausby, David

    Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

    Cummings, John

    Benton, Joe

    Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

    Bercow, John

    Curry, Rt Hon David

    Beresford, Sir Paul

    Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

    Bermingham, Gerald

    Dalyell, Tarn

    Berry, Roger

    Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

    Betts, Clive

    Darvill, Keith

    Blackman, Liz

    Davey, Edward (Kingston)

    Blunkett, Rt Hon David

    Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

    Blunt, Crispin

    Davidson, Ian

    Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

    Borrow, David

    Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

    Boswell, Tim

    Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

    Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

    Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

    Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

    Bradley, Keith (Withington)

    Dawson, Hilton

    Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

    Day, Stephen

    Bradshaw, Ben

    Dean, Mrs Janet

    Brady, Graham

    Denham, John

    Brake, Tom

    Dismore, Andrew

    Brand, Dr Peter

    Dobbin, Jim

    Brazier, Julian

    Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

    Breed, Colin

    Donohoe, Brian H

    Brinton, Mrs Helen

    Doran, Frank

    Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

    Dowd, Jim

    Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

    Drew, David

    Browne, Desmond

    Drown, Ms Julia

    Browning, Mrs Angela

    Duncan, Alan

    Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

    Duncan Smith, Iain

    Buck, Ms Karen

    Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

    Burden, Richard

    Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

    Burnett, John

    Edwards, Huw

    Burns, Simon

    Efford, Clive

    Burstow, Paul

    Ellman, Mrs Louise

    Butterfill, John

    Etherington, Bill

    Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

    Evans, Nigel

    Cable, Dr Vincent

    Faber, David

    Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

    Fabricant, Michael

    Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

    Fallon, Michael

    Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

    Feam, Ronnie

    Campbell-Savours, Dale

    Field, Rt Hon Frank

    Caplin, Ivor

    Fisher, Mark

    Casale, Roger

    Fitzpatrick, Jim

    Caton, Martin

    Flight, Howard

    Cawsey, Ian

    Flint, Caroline

    Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

    Flynn, Paul

    Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

    Follett, Barbara

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    Chaytor, David

    Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

    Clapham, Michael

    Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

    Clappison, James

    Foulkes, George

    Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

    Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

    Fox, Dr Liam

    Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

    Fraser, Christopher

    Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

    Fyfe, Maria

    Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

    Gale, Roger

    Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

    Gapes, Mike

    Clelland, David

    Gardiner, Barry

    Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

    Garnier, Edward

    Clwyd, Ann

    George, Andrew (St Ives)

    Coaker, Vernon

    Gerrard, Neil

    484

    Gibb, Nick

    Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

    Gibson, Dr Ian

    Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

    Gidley, Sandra

    Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

    Gill, Christopher

    Keetch, Paul

    Gilroy, Mrs Linda

    Kelly, Ms Ruth

    Godsiff, Roger

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

    Goggins, Paul

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

    Gordon, Mrs Eileen

    Key, Robert

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

    Khabra, Piara S

    Gray, James

    Kidney, David

    Green, Damian

    Kilfoyle, Peter

    Greenway, John

    King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

    Grieve, Dominic

    King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

    Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

    King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Kingham, Ms Tess

    Grogan, John

    Kirkbride, Miss Julie

    Hague, Rt Hon William

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Hain, Peter

    Kumar, Dr Ashok

    Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

    Ladyman, Dr Stephen

    Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

    Laing, Mrs Eleanor

    Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

    Lansley, Andrew

    Hammond, Philip

    Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

    Hancock, Mike

    Laxton, Bob

    Hanson, David

    Lepper, David

    Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

    Leslie, Christopher

    Harris, Dr Evan

    Letwin, Oliver

    Hawkins, Nick

    Levitt, Tom

    Hayes, John

    Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

    Heald, Oliver

    Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

    Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

    Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

    Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

    Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

    Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

    Lidington, David

    Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

    Linton, Martin

    Hendrick, Mark

    Livsey, Richard

    Heppell, John

    Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

    Hesford, Stephen

    Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

    Hinchliffe, David

    Llwyd, Elfyn

    Hoey, Kate

    Lock, David

    Hood, Jimmy

    Loughton, Tim

    Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

    Love, Andrew

    Hope, Phil

    Luff, Peter

    Hopkins, Kelvin

    Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

    Horam, John

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Howard, Rt Hon Michael

    McCabe, Steve

    Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

    McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

    Howells, Dr Kim

    McDonagh, Siobhain

    Hoyle, Lindsay

    McDonnell, John

    Hughes, Ms Beveriey (Stretford)

    McGrady, Eddie

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    MacGregor, Rt Hon John

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

    McGuire, Mrs Anne

    Humble, Mrs Joan

    McIntosh, Miss Anne

    Hurst, Alan

    McIsaac, Shona

    Iddon, Dr Brian

    MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

    Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

    Mackinlay, Andrew

    Jack, Rt Hon Michael

    Maclean, Rt Hon David

    Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

    McNulty, Tony

    Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

    MacShane, Denis

    Jamieson, David

    Mactaggart, Fiona

    Jenkin, Bernard

    McWalter, Tony

    Jenkins, Brian

    McWilliam, John

    Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

    Malins, Humfrey

    Mallaber, Judy

    Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

    Maples, John

    Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

    Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

    Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

    Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

    Mates, Michael

    Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

    Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

    May, Mrs Theresa

    Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

    Meale, Alan

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

    Merron, Gillian

    Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

    Michael, Rt Hon Alun

    Joyce, Eric

    Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

    485

    Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

    Sayeed, Jonathan

    Miller, Andrew

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Mitchell, Austin

    Shaw, Jonathan

    Moore, Michael

    Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

    Moran, Ms Margaret

    Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

    Motley, Elliot

    Shepherd, Richard

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

    Shipley, Ms Debra

    Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

    Moss, Malcolm

    Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

    Mountford, Kali

    Singh, Marsha

    Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie

    Skinner, Dennis

    Mudie, George

    Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

    Mullin, Chris

    Smith, Angela (Basildon)

    Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

    Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

    Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

    Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

    Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

    Naysmith, Dr Doug

    Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

    Norman, Archie

    Smith, John (Glamorgan)

    Norris, Dan

    Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

    Oaten, Mark

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

    O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

    Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

    O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

    Soames, Nicholas

    O'Hara, Eddie

    Soley, Clive

    Olner, Bill

    Southworth, Ms Helen

    O'Neill, Martin

    Spellar, John

    Öpik, Lembit

    Spelman, Mrs Caroline

    Organ, Mrs Diana

    Spicer, Sir Michael

    Osborne, Ms Sandra

    Spring, Richard

    Ottaway, Richard

    Squire, Ms Rachel

    Page, Richard

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Paice, James

    Stevenson, George

    Paterson, Owen

    Stewart, David (Inverness E)

    Pearson, Ian

    Stinchcombe, Paul

    Perham, Ms Linda

    Stoate, Dr Howard

    Pickles, Eric

    Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

    Pickthall, Colin

    Straw, Rt Hon Jack

    Pike, Peter L

    Streeter, Gary

    Plaskitt, James

    Stringer, Graham

    Pond, Chris

    Stuart, Ms Gisela

    Pope, Greg

    Sutcliffe, Gerry

    Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

    Swayne, Desmond

    Pound, Stephen

    Syms, Robert

    Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Prescott, Rt Hon John

    Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

    Primarolo, Dawn

    Prior, David

    Taylor, David (NWLeics)

    Prosser, Gwyn

    Taylor, Ian (Esher& Walton)

    Purchase, Ken

    Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strangford)

    Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

    Taylor, John M (Solihull)

    Quinn, Lawrie

    Taylor, Sir Teddy

    Randall, John

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Rapson, Syd

    Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

    Raynsford, Nick

    Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

    Redwood, Rt Hon John

    Thompson, William

    Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

    Timms, Stephen

    Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

    Tipping, Paddy

    Rendel, David

    Todd, Mark

    Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

    Tonge, Dr Jenny

    Touhig, Don

    Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

    Tredinnick, David

    Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

    Trend, Michael

    Roche, Mrs Barbara

    Trimble, Rt Hon David

    Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

    Truswell, Paul

    Rogers, Allan

    Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

    Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

    Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

    Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

    Turner, Neil (Wigan)

    Ruane, Chris

    Twigg, Derek (Halton)

    Ruddock, Joan

    Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

    Ruffley, David

    Tynan, Bill

    Ryan, Ms Joan

    Tyrie, Andrew

    Salter, Martin

    Vaz, Keith

    Sanders, Adrian

    Viggers, Peter

    Sarwar, Mohammad

    Vis, Dr Rudi

    Savidge, Malcolm

    Walley, Ms Joan

    Sawford, Phil

    Walter, Robert

    486

    Ward, Ms Claire

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

    Wardle, Charles

    Wareing, Robert N

    Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

    Waterson, Nigel

    Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

    Watts, David

    Winnick, David

    Welsh, Andrew

    Woodward, Shaun

    White, Brian

    Woolas, Phil

    Whitehead, Dr Alan

    Worthington, Tony

    Whitney, Sir Raymond

    Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

    Whittingdale, John

    Wright, Tony (Cannock)

    Wicks, Malcolm

    Wyatt, Derek

    Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

    Yeo, Tim

    Wilkinson, John

    Young, Rt Hon Sir George

    Willetts, David

    NOES

    Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

    Wells, Bowen

    Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

    Question accordingly agreed to.

    HUMAN RIGHTS
    That Mr. Desmond Browne, Sir Patrick Cormack, Jean Corston, Mr. Robert Maclennan, Mr. Andrew Miller and Mr. Gareth Thomas (Clwyd West), be members of the Select Committee appointed to join with a Committee of the Lords as the Joint Committee on Human Rights.
    The House divided: Ayes 487, Noes 2.

    Division No. 59]

    AYES

    Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

    Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

    Ainger, Nick

    Bradley, Keith (Withington)

    Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

    Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

    Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

    Bradshaw, Ben

    Allan, Richard

    Brady, Graham

    Allen, Graham

    Brake, Tom

    Amess, David

    Brand, Dr Peter

    Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

    Brazier, Julian

    Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

    Breed, Colin

    Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

    Brinton, Mrs Helen

    Ashton, Joe

    Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

    Atherton, Ms Candy

    Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

    Atkins, Charlotte

    Browne, Desmond

    Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

    Browning, Mrs Angela

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

    Austin, John

    Buck, Ms Karen

    Bailey, Adrian

    Burden, Richard

    Baker, Norman

    Burnett, John

    Baldry, Tony

    Burns, Simon

    Banks, Tony

    Burstow, Paul

    Barnes, Harry

    Butterfill, John

    Barren, Kevin

    Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

    Bayley, Hugh

    Cable, Dr Vincent

    Beard, Nigel

    Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

    Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

    Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

    Begg, Miss Anne

    Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

    Beggs, Roy

    Campbell-Savours, Dale

    Beith, Rt Hon A J

    Caplin, Ivor

    Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

    Casale, Roger

    Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

    Caton, Martin

    Benton, Joe

    Cawsey, Ian

    Bercow, John

    Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

    Beresford, Sir Paul

    Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

    Bermingham, Gerald

    Berry, Roger

    Chaytor, David

    Betts, Clive

    Clapham, Michael

    Blackman, Liz

    Clappison, James

    Blunkett, Rt Hon David

    Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

    Blunt, Crispin

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

    Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

    Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

    Borrow, David

    Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

    Boswell, Tim

    Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

    Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

    Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

    487

    Clelland, David

    Gardiner, Barry

    Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

    Garnier, Edward

    Clwyd, Ann

    George, Andrew (St lves)

    Coaker, Vernon

    Gerrard, Neil

    Coffey, Ms Ann

    Gibb, Nick

    Cohen, Harry

    Gibson, Dr lan

    Coleman, Iain

    Gidley, Sandra

    Colman, Tony

    Gill, Christopher

    Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

    Gilroy, Mrs Linda

    Cooper, Yvette

    Godsiff, Roger

    Corbett, Robin

    Goggins, Paul

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    Cormack, Sir Patrick

    Gordon, Mrs Eileen

    Cotter, Brian

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

    Cousins, Jim

    Gray, James

    Cox, Tom

    Green, Damian

    Cran, James

    Greenway, John

    Cranston, Ross

    Grieve, Dominic

    Crausby, David

    Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

    Cummings, John

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

    Grogan, John

    Curry, Rt Hon David

    Hague, Rt Hon William

    Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

    Hain, Peter

    Dalyell, Tarn

    Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

    Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

    Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

    Darvill, Keith

    Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

    Davey, Edward (Kingston)

    Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

    Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

    Hammond, Philip

    Davidson, Ian

    Hancock, Mike

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

    Hanson, David

    Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

    Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

    Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

    Harris, Dr Evan

    Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

    Hawkins, Nick

    Hayes, John

    Dawson, Hilton

    Heald, Oliver

    Day, Stephen

    Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

    Dean, Mrs Janet

    Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

    Denham, John

    Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

    Dismore, Andrew

    Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

    Dobbin, Jim

    Hendrick, Mark

    Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

    Heppell, John

    Donohoe, Brian H

    Hesford, Stephen

    Doran, Frank

    Hinchliffe, David

    Dowd, Jim

    Hoey, Kate

    Drew, David

    Hood, Jimmy

    Drown, Ms Julia

    Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

    Duncan, Alan

    Hope, Phil

    Duncan Smith, Iain

    Hopkins, Kelvin

    Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

    Horam, John

    Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

    Howard, Rt Hon Michael

    Edwards, Huw

    Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

    Efford, Clive

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

    Ellman, Mrs Louise

    Howells, Dr Kim

    Etherington, Bill

    Hoyle, Lindsay

    Evans, Nigel

    Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

    Faber, David

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Fabricant, Michael

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

    Fallon, Michael

    Humble, Mrs Joan

    Fearn, Ronnie

    Hurst, Alan

    Field, Rt Hon Frank

    Iddon, Dr Brian

    Fisher, Mark

    Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

    Rtzpatrick, Jim

    Jack, Rt Hon Michael

    Right, Howard

    Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

    Rint, Caroline

    Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

    Rynn, Paul

    Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

    Follett, Barbara

    Jamieson, David

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    Jenkin, Bernard

    Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

    Jenkins, Brian

    Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

    Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

    Foulkes, George

    Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

    Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

    Fox, Dr Liam

    Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

    Fraser, Christopher

    Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

    Fyfe, Maria

    Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

    Gale, Roger

    Gapes, Mike

    Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

    488

    Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

    May, Mrs Theresa

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

    Meale, Alan

    Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

    Merron, Gillian

    Joyce, Eric

    Michael, Rt Hon Alun

    Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

    Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

    Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

    Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

    Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

    Miller, Andrew

    Keetch, Paul

    Mitchell, Austin

    Kelly, Ms Ruth

    Moore, Michael

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

    Moran, Ms Margaret

    Morley, Elliot

    Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

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

    Key, Robert

    Khabra, Piara S

    Moss, Malcolm

    Kidney, David

    Mountford, Kali

    Kilfoyle, Peter

    Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie

    King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

    Mudie, George

    King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

    Mullin, Chris

    King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

    Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

    Kingham, Ms Tess

    Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

    Kirkbride, Miss Julie

    Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Naysmith, Dr Doug

    Kumar, Dr Ashok

    Norman, Archie

    Ladyman, Dr Stephen

    Norris, Dan

    Laing, Mrs Eleanor

    Oaten, Mark

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

    Lansley, Andrew

    O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

    Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

    O'Hara, Eddie

    Laxton, Bob

    Olner, Bill

    Lepper, David

    O'Neill, Martin

    Leslie, Christopher

    Öpik, Lembit

    Letwin, Oliver

    Organ, Mrs Diana

    Levitt, Tom

    Osborne, Ms Sandra

    Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

    Ottaway, Richard

    Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

    Page, Richard

    Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

    Paice, James

    Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

    Paterson, Owen

    Lidington, David

    Pearson, Ian

    Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

    Perham, Ms Linda

    Linton, Martin

    Pickles, Eric

    Livsey, Richard

    Pickthall, Colin

    Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

    Pike, Peter L

    Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

    Plaskitt, James

    Llwyd, Elfyn

    Pond, Chris

    Lock, David

    Pope, Greg

    Loughton, Tim

    Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

    Love, Andrew

    Pound, Stephen

    Luff, Peter

    Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

    Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

    Prescott, Rt Hon John

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Primarolo, Dawn

    McCabe, Steve

    Prior, David

    McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)

    Prosser, Gwyn

    Purchase, Ken

    McDonagh, Siobhain

    Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

    McDonnell, John

    Quinn, Lawrie

    McGrady, Eddie

    Randall, John

    MacGregor, Rt Hon John

    Rapson, Syd

    McGuire, Mrs Anne

    Raynsford, Nick

    McIntosh, Miss Anne

    Redwood, Rt Hon John

    McIsaac, Shona

    Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

    MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

    Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

    Mackinlay, Andrew

    Rendel, David

    Maclean, Rt Hon David

    Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    McNulty, Tony

    Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

    MacShane, Denis

    Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

    Mactaggart, Fiona

    Roche, Mrs Barbara

    McWalter, Tony

    Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxboume)

    McWilliam, John

    Rogers, Allan

    Malins, Humfrey

    Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

    Mallaber, Judy

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    Maples, John

    Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

    Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

    Ruane, Chris

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

    Ruddock, Joan

    Mates, Michael

    Ruffley, David

    Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

    Ryan, Ms Joan

    489

    Salter, Martin

    Spicer, Sir Michael

    Sanders, Adrian

    Spring, Richard

    Sarwar, Mohammad

    Squire, Ms Rachel

    Savidge, Malcolm

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Sawford, Phil

    Stevenson, George

    Sayeed, Jonathan

    Stewart, David (Inverness E)

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Stinchcombe, Paul

    Shaw, Jonathan

    Stoate, Dr Howard

    Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

    Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

    Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

    Straw, Rt Hon Jack

    Shepherd, Richard

    Streeter, Gary

    Shipley, Ms Debra

    Stringer, Graham

    Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

    Stuart, Ms Gisela

    Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

    Sutcliffe, Gerry

    Singh, Marsha

    Swayne, Desmond

    Skinner, Dennis

    Syms, Robert

    Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Smith, Angela (Basildon)

    Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

    Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

    Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

    Taylor, David (NW Leics)

    Taylor, Ian (Esher& Walton)

    Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

    Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strangford)

    Smith, John (Glamorgan)

    Taylor, John M (Solihull)

    Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

    Taylor, Sir Teddy

    Smith, Sir Robert (WAb'dns)

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

    Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

    Soames, Nicholas

    Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

    Soley, Clive

    Thompson, William

    Southworth, Ms Helen

    Timms, Stephen

    Spellar, John

    Tipping, Paddy

    Spelman, Mrs Caroline

    Todd, Mark

    490

    Tonge, Dr Jenny

    Watts, David

    Touhig, Don

    Welsh, Andrew

    Tredinnick, David

    White, Brian

    Trend, Michael

    Whitehead, Dr Alan

    Trimble, Rt Hon David

    Whitney, Sir Raymond

    Truswell, Paul

    Whittingdale, John

    Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

    Wicks, Malcolm

    Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

    Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

    Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

    Wilkinson, John

    Turner, Neil (Wigan)

    Willetts, David

    Twigg, Derek (Halton)

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

    Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

    Tynan, Bill

    Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

    Tyrie, Andrew

    Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

    Vaz, Keith

    Winnick, David

    Viggers, Peter

    Woodward, Shaun

    Vis, Dr Rudi

    Woolas, Phil

    Walley, Ms Joan

    Worthington, Tony

    Walter, Robert

    Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

    Ward, Ms Claire

    Wright, Tony (Cannock)

    Wardle, Charles

    Wyatt, Derek

    Wareing, Robert N

    Yeo,Tim

    Waterson, Nigel

    Young, Rt Hon Sir George

    NOES

    Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

    Wells, Bowen

    Question accordingly agreed to.

Preamble
[MRS. SYLVIA HEAL in the Chair]

Electoral Reform
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned—[Mr. Touhig.]
9.30 am
Sir George Young: My purpose in initiating today's debate on electoral reform is not so much to discuss which system for electing Members of Parliament is the best, but to try to bring some clarity to the Government's proposals for electoral reform—a matter on which they have become, at best, confused and, at worst, evasive. While other systems may be appropriate for other institutions, I believe that first past the post is right for Westminster.
There are many issues in which the House has a legitimate interest, but where the Government's policy is less than clear. However, nothing affects us all more than the method by which we secure election here, and it is particularly difficult to find out what is going on.
Today's debate shines a torch on that murky area of policy making and, in order not to take the Government by surprise, on the day that I knew this debate would take place—last Thursday—I wrote to the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien), to gave him advance notice of seven questions that I wanted to put to him. I wrote to the Home Office because electoral reform is its responsibility, but also because an official from the Home Office had telephoned my secretary to establish the purpose of the debate and whether it would be more appropriate for a Cabinet Office Minister to reply. We made it clear that we expected the Home Office to reply.
Last night, I discovered that the Home Office asserted that it had not got my letter. It passed the chalice, not to the Cabinet Office, but to the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office, who has some acquaintance with these issues having played a key part in the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. I gave him a copy of my letter and I now see in his place the Under-Secretary of State, Lord Chancellor's Department, the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Lock). He will not be offended it I say that the Lord Chancellor's Department was no one's first choice, but as this is a debate on PR perhaps that is appropriate.
Constitutional reform has not been the Government's strongest card. Reform of the House of Lords appears to have stalled, although only two years ago we were told that stage two could happen in this Parliament. There is no sign of the promised joint committee a year after Lord Wakeham reported. Devolution has left an imbalance so far as England is concerned, which the Government pretend does not exist. An internal argument about elected mayors or elected regional assemblies has led to yet more stalling and, so far, they have not embarked on electoral reform for Westminster, and I hope they do not. So, what are they up to?
72WH
The history, briefly, is that the manifesto gave a clear commitment on a referendum on voting systems. It said:
We are committed to a referendum on the voting system for the House of Commons. An independent commission on voting systems will be appointed early to recommend a proportional alternative to the first-past-the-post system.
I note at this stage the use of the word "proportional". Anyone reading that sentence would conclude that Labour believes that first past the post is not proportional and the alternative should be. The Minister may tell us that that commitment was undated, but in another sentence at the beginning of the manifesto the Prime Minister addressed the need to counter cynicism about politics, saying:
I want to do it by making a limited set of important promises and achieving them.
Later, he said:
That is why we have made it our guiding principle not to promise what we cannot deliver and to deliver what we promise.
To put the matter beyond doubt, on BBC Radio 4's programme, "The World at One", on 6 January 1997, the Home Secretary said:
What we are committed to is having a referendum on voting systems … this is a major advance for any party to be able to offer the British people that choice and then for that choice to go forward during the course of the next Parliament
That strikes me as unequivocal.
When elected, the Government established the Jenkins commission. In the 2 June 1998 debate, before the report was published, the Government were still telling us that a referendum would be held in this Parliament. The Home Secretary said:
I shall go through the expected time scale for the referendum. The Jenkins commission hopes to report in October. After that, primary legislation will be needed to permit a referendum to be held. The plan is that the referendum should take place well before the next election. It will offer the public a clear choice between first past the post and an alternative, drawn from the recommendations of the commission.—[Official Report, 2 June 1998; Vol. 313, c. 190.]
The report was published on 29 October 1998 and it recommended a mixed system, that it described as limited AMS or alternative vote top-up, but is now popularly know as AV-plus. Between 80 and 85 per cent. of Members would be constituency Members, elected by AV, with the balance elected through open lists using small top-up areas based on cities or counties. Voters would have two votes, one for the constituency and one for the top-up area. It is worth looking at paragraph 82 of the report, Cm 4090–1, to read what the Jenkins commission says about AV on its own. That is important in view of signs that the Government are now moving towards AV. It said:
Beyond this, AV on its own suffers from a stark objection. It offers little prospect of a move towards greater proportionality, and in some circumstances, and those are the ones which certainly prevailed at the last election and may well do so for at least the next one, it is even less proportional than FPTP. Simulations of how the 1997 result might have come out under AV suggest that it would have significantly increased the size of the already swollen Labour majority … The overall Labour majority could thus have risen from 169 to 245 … The Conservative 30.7 per cent. of the votes should strictly have given them 202 seats. Instead FPTP gave them 165, or 25 per cent. of the seats, whereas AV would have given them on one estimate only 96 (or 14.6 per cent. of the seats).

73WH
Paragraph 85 continued:
far from doing much to relieve disproportionality, it is capable of substantially adding to it.
My first question to the Minister is: does he agree that AV would not deliver the manifesto commitment of a proportional alternative to first past the post?
On publication, we saw the first signs of equivocation and the Government taking cover. The Home Office press notice on 29 October 1998, stated:
Fourth, the Government will want to take account of the radical and ambitious programme of constitutional reform that is taking place, particularly the reform of the House of Lords. It will want to consider how the new systems of election soon to be in operation in Scotland, Wales and for the European parliament settle down. The constitutional reform programme should be looked at as a whole prior to any decision being made on this issue.
It is worth pausing to consider the appearance of this new alibi. There had never been any hint that the manifesto commitment was to be qualified in that way. Only a few weeks earlier, the commitment had been reasserted—I quoted the Home Secretary— although it was known at that time that elections for Europe, Scotland and Wales would be held using a different system.
Further evidence of the change of heart came in the debate on the Jenkins report on 5 November 1998. The Home Secretary said:
As to timing, we have always envisaged that the referendum would be before the next election, and that remains an option. However, plainly, in the light of Lord Jenkins's specific recommendations, this is less certain, because the new system cannot be introduced until the election after next. Nor, in our judgment, is there a need for the Government to come to an early view about the commission's recommendation.—[Official Report, 5 November 1998; Vol. 337, c. 1036.]
The wordsmith had been hard at work with those three sentences, which deserve close analysis. I have three comments. First, an event to which the right hon. Gentleman was "committed" on 6 January 1997, namely a referendum in this Parliament, became an event that he "envisaged" on 5 November 1998. A commitment had been demoted to an option. Secondly, he asserted that because the new system could not be introduced before the next election, the referendum on it need not be held before it either.
The manifesto commitment was never to introduce a new system in this Parliament. Indeed, if the referendum on the alternative were defeated, it would clearly not have been introduced. The commitment was on the referendum, not the introduction of a new system and the Home Secretary conveniently, but wrongly, elided the two. Finally, he asserted that there was no need for the Government to come to an early view on Jenkins. However, an early view was necessary if the Government planned to keep their manifesto commitment. It was ingenious to reverse the argument: to assert that there was no need to come to an early decision and from that assertion to conclude that the referendum should not be held.
I would ask the Minister whether he accepts that the commitment at the election to hold the referendum on PR will be broken. The question is appropriate today because I woke up to a Home Office Minister boasting on the "Today" programme of how the Government
74WH
were carrying out their commitment on hunting. The debate produced one other quotation that is relevant to our debate this morning. Winding up the debate, the Under-Secretary said
If we are to have change—and ultimately that will be, quite properly, a decision for the voters—we now have an alternative, whether we like it or not, alongside which the status quo of the first-past-the-post system can be judged and debated. In that important sense the commission members have done us a service.—[Official Report, 5 November 1998; Vol. 318, c. 1110–1111.]
In other words, when we have a referendum, it will be first past the post against AV-plus.
Will the Minister confirm that the statement made on 5 November is still the view of the Government? I see from the briefing supplied for this debate by Charter 88 that at last year's Labour party conference, the Minister for the Home Office said that he expected that AV-plus would be the alternative to the status quo.
On 23 June 1999 the Opposition initiated a debate on PR, inviting the Government to hold a referendum or to ditch the commitment. A plausible speech was made by the then shadow Leader of the House of Commons. The Government amendment declined the invitation, but welcomed
the Government's approach which allows for a full debate in the country on the merits of the Jenkins system before a referendum is held.
There was the sound of long grassing opening up to embrace that difficult question.
We can now pass to last year and the concern behind today's debate. The Sunday Express on 23 April, stated:
Tony Blair and Charles Kennedy are close to a deal on voting reform aimed at keeping the Tories out of power forever. The Prime Minister and Liberal Democrat Leader are moving towards a compromise they believe they can sell to both their parties. The deal, discussed by the two in secret talks, is for a stop-gap voting system known as AV.
The Times ran a similar story on 1 April, stating:
This would not be PR and would preserve the traditional link between MPs and their constituencies, but would give the Liberal Democrats dozens more seats.

Dr. Julian Lewis: Does my right hon. Friend agree that for many years the Liberal Democrats and their predecessors have argued that what comprises fair votes is a system that would give proportionality between the votes cast and the number of MPs elected? Is it not remarkable that they should therefore be willing to consider AV, which as my right hon. Friend pointed out, would give a disproportionate result, but which—it just so happens—would enable the Liberal Democrats to get many more seats?
Sir George Young: We look forward to hearing the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan)—I hope that he may catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker—denouncing that squalid deal to which I referred and which my hon. Friend criticised so perceptively.
By 8 July, events had moved on. I read in the The Guardian:
Tony Blair's allies last night brokered a deal on electoral reform which will lead to a commitment in Labour's next manifesto to hold a referendum on modernising the system of elections to the House of Commons. The deal, which will lead to the party

75WH
embracing the alternative vote (AV) system, will end an internal Labour row between supporters of proportional representation and traditionalists who want to maintain the first-past-the-post system.
The national policy forum in Exeter—an event that we know the Home Secretary attended, as he made his way there at some speed—retained the commitment to hold a referendum, without specifying a voting system to put to the public. However, I understand that the party refused to give its support to AV-plus. By 31 August, The Times tells us that Lord Jenkins was reconciled to Labour ditching AV-plus and quoted the great man, as saying:
He was disappointed but not surprised.
On 5 September, the Financial Times reported:
Given the hostility of many Members to a complex voting system proposed by Lord Jenkins, any referendum would almost certainly be confined to a reform that involved the election of all MPs on a constituency basis.
Sir David Frost can help us a little on that issue, as he examined the Foreign Secretary on the subject on 26 October, asking:
Do you feel, in terms of PR that having made the general promise of a referendum on PR, not hinged absolutely on this Parliament, but that next time you'll need to make a pledge for a referendum on PR within the next Parliament?
To which the Foreign Secretary replied:
That is our policy, David. Commitment to consulting the public on an alternative to the present voting system is one that has been endorsed by our party twice in the course of this past year, and it will be the policy at the next election.
David Frost, then said:
It will be, that, that's an important clarification there, people were concerned that might not happen.
The Foreign Secretary replied:
Well David the manifesto hasn't been written, but that is the commitment of the party and that is the policy of the party.
That leads me to my next question. Was the Foreign Secretary correctly setting out Government policy in committing them, if re-elected, to a referendum in the next. Parliament?
To understand what is going on behind the scenes we need the help of the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane), whom I am delighted to see in his place. On 4 November, he issued a press release that says it all:
There are twelve Tory seats where, if fewer than one in ten of the voters who voted for the third place candidate had voted differently, we could have seen seven more Labour MP's and five more LibDems. All it takes is for a couple of hundred voters to vote tactically and we can push the Tories to the margins of British politics.
Developing the theme, the hon. Gentleman said:
To achieve this, we need to show that we are keeping the door open to electoral reform.
He spoke approvingly of the system in France, where the social democratic and labour parties vote tactically, saying:
In France, it is called the republican tradition so that in the two round voting system they have there, the best placed non-Conservative candidate gets the votes of the third place party.
That is exactly what the alternative vote system does. That is not a fair or a proportional system; it is simply a system that seeks to scupper the Government's principal opponents.
76WH
I shall quote from a speech to Make Votes Count by the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson), who deplored that cynical approach. He said:
However any change of voting system must be made for national, not party reasons. It is my dearest wish as a Labour politician to dish the Tories and to create in the 21st century a progressive century, in the way the Conservatives, against a divided centre-left opposition, dominated the last. But the case for electoral reform cannot be advanced as a private arrangement that suits Labour and Liberal Democrats. If it is, in a referendum, the cause will surely fail. The case has to be made on grounds of national interest and the solution must be one that lasts.
On tactical voting, for which the hon. Member for Rotherham has high hopes, it would be helpful if the Minister would confirm that the Labour Government, when they seek the endorsement of the electorate, will be offering every voter in Britain the opportunity to vote for a Labour candidate. If he cannot give that assurance, the House will be entitled to conclude that some covert deal is being concocted. Colleagues and hon. Members may have seen The Independent on Sunday that had a headline: "Lib-Lab poll pact aims to crush Tories. Secret 'hands-off deals' could cost Conservatives up to 100 seats." The article went on to say:
Sources close to the Leaders of both parties acknowledged that in many of these seats local arrangements had been made to ensure that there would be a "candidate, but no contest" …It is proposed that no central resources will be directed into those areas.

Mr. Denis MacShane: In my remarks, I said, as a Labour Member of Parliament, that my duty was to urge all people and all Labour voters to vote for a Labour candidate. I regard Liberal Democrats, especially at local level, as little more than genetically modified Tories. However, as the Conservative party is now so ideologically extreme, so far to the right and so racially opportunistic, it is everyone's duty to defeat the Conservative party at every possible moment in parliamentary elections.
Sir George Young: The hon. Member was not born yesterday. He must have realised that when people read the totality of his speech they would see it as an inducement to vote for the third candidate, or for the second candidate, if that displaced the Conservative. That is a clear consequence of the course that he was advocating, and he has no one to blame but himself if his remarks have been misconstrued.
Sources close to the leaders of the two parties are here this morning and we look forward to hearing that there is no covert deal of the type mentioned in the press. My party proposes to contest every seat in Britain and will not be taking part in any behind-the-scenes fixing.
The issue was raised on 15 November at Prime Minister's questions by my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis), who asked the Prime Minister not to support AV. He got an equivocal, but interesting reply:
In relation to PR, however, I am not in favour of any system that breaks the link between constituency and Member of Parliament.—[Official Report, 15 November 2000; Vol. 356, c. 930.]
That rules out AV-plus and the Jenkins system.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. David Lock): It does not.
Sir George Young: It does, because under the top-ups there is no link between the constituency and the

77WH
Member of Parliament, and that is the alternative system on which the Government are committed to going into a referendum. The Prime Minister has not ruled out AV but he has ruled out AV-plus in that reply, which underlines the importance of my second question to the Minister today.
It would be helpful to have the Minister's thoughts on one matter. How does the Labour party plan to spend the £5 million that it is allowed on a referendum on PR? We have never had a satisfactory reply to that question. We are aware that the Labour party is split on the issue—there is nothing wrong with that. Does the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 allow the Labour party to spend the £5 million in proportion—spending £2.5 million for those who want to keep the first part of the vote and £2.5 million for those who want to change? Who is going to make the decision? Will it be the leader of the party, the national executive committee, or a membership-wide ballot? Who will be disappointed—the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Twigg) or the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell)?
That question has been mentioned many times. I hope that we may have an answer this morning. In short, what we have had so far is a manifesto commitment that is not to be honoured, then a commitment to a referendum between first past the post and AV-plus, which has apparently been broken. We have seen a move towards a system—AV, which is not proportional, but which happens to make life difficult for the Government's main opponents— and, finally, equivocation from the Prime Minister when he is asked to make his position clear.
What has happened to the Prime Minister's ambition to realign the centre-left of British politics? Is it, as the leader of the Liberal Democrats said,
gently residing in a coma?
The Minister has an opportunity to clarify and define the Government's decision, which is a matter of interest to all hon. Members, and we will hang on every word.
9.52 am
Mr. Richard Burden: I congratulate the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) on securing today's debate. I found his speech amusing, but the logic was sometimes confusing. The first thing that I found confusing was the way in which he described the alternative vote system. He appeared to be advancing the argument that it arose, in some way, from a wish to further tactical voting in elections, and he suggested there could be a deal between parties to introduce that system. I find that confusing, because if there is one feature that the alternative vote does not encourage it is tactical voting.
Under the present system—indeed, it is one of the problems with the system of first past the post—the voter is often faced with the necessity of working out who they least want to be in office, and then which other candidate will be the best challenger of that person. That encourages voters to look not for the party that they most support, but for the one, out of those that have the best chance of winning in that constituency, that most closely mirrors their own views. This is where tactical
78WH
voting comes in: in trying to work out who is best placed and therefore who to vote for. The very fact that the alternative vote system is a preferential voting system means that the voter has a great deal more power and choice to say, "Party A is the one that most closely mirrors what I believe in, so that is the one I am going to give my first preference to— but I do not want mine to be a wasted vote." The ability to state another preference allows that vote to be transferred.
I accept that hon. Members may have different views about whether preferential voting is a good idea, but to say that it encourages tactical voting is nonsense. It encourages precisely the opposite.
Another reason why a system of preferential voting needs to be an element of the voting system for Westminster is the simple argument that says that, if we are to come here claiming to represent all our constituents, is it toe much to suggest that we should have had majority support in the ballot box from those constituents? After all, that is the principle on which we elect our leaders.
I realise that the Conservative party has a chequered history about the precise voting systems that it has used to elect its leaders in the past, but the principle of preferential voting is not outlandish, and today it is operated by the Labour and Conservative parties. So why, when it comes to Parliament, does it have such difficulty with this? If one is going to claim to speak for a constituency, one should at least be able to say, "I secured majority support amongst those who voted in an election"—it is not a bad principle to adopt.
There are powerful arguments for a preferential voting system to be part of a new electoral system for this country. There is great support for the principle of the constituency Member of Parliament link. The most appropriate way to achieve that is through a single Member, from a single constituency and, therefore, AV meets that bill.
There is, however, an issue about whether AV on its own is really appropriate or sufficient to achieve the type of fairer voting system that I should like. That is where I would advocate that we have a system that includes AV but includes something else as well. The problem with the alternative vote on its own is that it focuses purely on the constituency. The individual Member of Parliament will be able legitimately to claim that he or she has a majority of voters supporting him or her, if elected to this House. It does not correct any imbalances nationally, and it has a similar problem to that of first-past-the-post, in that it measures geographical concentrations of votes rather than the support of voters across the country.
Mr. Dominic Grieve: I am trying to follow the hon. Gentleman's argument. There may be arguments for AV-plus and arguments for AV, but I do not understand, when he has just issued his panegyric in favour of AV, why there should then be any need, on the logic of his argument, for any kind of regional representation, because there is no longer an issue—I am sure that he would agree with me about this—about a disproportion having crept in. Will the hon.

79WH
Gentleman explain that? I think that both systems—AV and AV-plus—are nonsense, but I shall return to that in my speech.
Mr. Burden: If the hon. Gentleman had contained himself just a little longer, I would have explained precisely that point. The problem is that, while AV does measures proportionality or a degree of proportionality within constituencies, it does not necessarily do so on its own across the country as a whole. For example, in the US in the past couple of months, an odd spectacle has arisen from the results of its presidential election system. My constituents and others think it peculiar that one can end up with, arguably, the most powerful individual in the world not necessarily having gained the majority of the votes in a democracy. It sounds crazy, does it not?
People might think that it could never happen in this country, but it has. For instance, the Labour party achieved a fantastic result in 1951; it did better then than ever before—or since. However, despite achieving more votes than the main challenger party, it lost the election because the geographical dispersal of votes meant that that majority was not reflected in the result. To prove that I am not making a party political point, I must point out that it happened the other way round at the first of the elections held in 1974. We should be concerned about perverse results.
Mr. Ken Purchase: My hon. Friend makes the point well that, on occasion, the popular vote does not secure the greater number of seats. However, does he not accept that if the rules had been different and we were fighting for the popular vote alone, the parties would have waged a different campaign? We would have concentrated on the seats where the greatest numbers of votes might be gained, in order to secure the popular vote, which would have frustrated the system, just as happens under the system that he now complains about.
Mr. Burden: The history of the major political parties in recent years shows that in order to win under the first-part-the-post system, they have to do exactly that. They target the seats that they believe will make the difference between winning and losing. All parties do it. It is interesting to note that the overall percentage of votes gained by the Liberal Democrats at the last election was not one of their best results, but that the number of seats that the party gained was one of its best results. One reason for that is that the party has worked out how to target and concentrate its efforts. I am not sure that that is the best way to generate the sort of public debate that is necessary at election time.
Dr. Lewis: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his great courtesy in giving way to me. He rightly pointed out the occasional perversity whereby, once in a while, the party that wins the largest number of votes does not win a majority of seats. However, does he not accept that a far more frequent perversity operates under PR, which is that, because it is essential to build a majority for a coalition Government, a party with a low level of support in the country is offered posts of an influence disproportionately greater than its support could possibly bring it?
Mr. Burden: The hon. Gentleman leads me on to my next point. No system is perfect; no system can offer
80WH
pure democracy. In considering the various electoral systems in other Legislatures and Executives, we should try to work out the criteria that we want. The most important factors were set out clearly in the terms of reference of the Jenkins commission. If the result of an election does not show a clear majority among the voters showing what kind or colour of Government they wish to see, it seems wrong that the mechanics of the voting system should create one. That said, the sort of pure proportional system used in Israel can have serious consequences for effective and stable government. That is why I would not support such a system.
I believe that there are three broad ways to address the problem of the geographical concentration of votes. First, one could get rid of the geographical concentration argument by getting rid of constituencies—but that is entirely unacceptable. It would be the purest form of proportional representation, but it would be chaotic, and as far as I know no serious analyst would advocate it for this country. Secondly, one could build in a degree of proportionality by massively expanding constituencies and building a sort of multi-member system, the most common form of which uses the single transferable vote. That has some merits. However, it has an important flaw in terms of our democratic traditions—the weakening of the link between the individual Member and his or her constituency. That is a problem in relation to STV and multi-member constituencies.
The third way of operating proportional representation is to build in some form of top-up system, with extra Members of Parliament, to correct those imbalances, and the system that came out of the independent commission would do that. The right hon. Gentleman said that Jenkins broke the link between the MP and the constituency. It does not. Under the Jenkins system, every voter in every constituency would have the opportunity to vote for his or her constituency MP.
Mr. Grieve rose—
Mr. Burden: I shall not take any more interventions, because I know that several people want to speak. The question is whether it is wrong to have top-up MPs as well. Jenkins advocates a small minority of top-up MPs, which would correct some of the worst imbalances of the first-past-the-post system. That does not destroy the constituency system, for two reasons. First, there are still the constituency MPs, and secondly, the top-up MPs would themselves have constituencies. Jenkins is clear that they would be elected through an open list system from clear constituencies, normally the size of a county area.
The objection may be made that there is something intrinsically wrong with having two representatives for an area that may include the same voters. However, if that is a problem for Westminster elections, why is it not a problem that councillors, Members of this Parliament and Members of the European Parliament represent the same area? Why do those who put forward that objection not have the same objection when it comes to their local authority, where multi-member representation is often the norm?
The Jenkins system retains the constituency link, although in a different form. People will decide whether that is good or bad. I believe that it is constructive. Let

81WH
us not hear the argument that the constituency link is somehow abolished. Some forms of proportional representation do that, but the Jenkins system does not. It retains the constituency link, while allowing for the correction of some of the worst excesses of first past the post in terms of proportionality.
A number of hon. Members want to speak today, so I shall finish my speech. The right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire put a lot of emphasis on the issue of a referendum, and I shall conclude by saying that I hope that there will be a referendum on the voting system in the next Parliament. Whatever the result, it would be a positive thing for democracy and for politics in this country if we encouraged voters to debate not only the political colour of the people they want to represent them, but what democracy means, what government means, what legislation means and how they relate to the political process. One way to achieve that—and to do so constructively—is through a referendum on the voting system.
I wish to encourage that debate, and I ask Conservative Members whether they want it to take place. If they are for the debate, would they like to clarify whether they are for or against a referendum in principle, so that voters—rather than Opposition Members or myself—decide the way in which they are governed?
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. John McWilliam (in the Chair): Order. Before I call the next Member to speak, may I remind Members that we have an hour and a half for the debate, and appeal for brief speeches?
10.9 am
Dr. Julian Lewis: Over the past week, the papers have been full of the trial of a former member of a German terrorist group. The reason has less to do with the ex-terrorist himself than with a friend of his, who is giving testimony as a witness. That friend, Joschka Fischer, is the Foreign Minister of Germany. He holds that position on the basis that his party—the Green Party—received less than 7 per cent. of the popular vote in the German parliamentary elections. Not only does Mr. Fischer have an extremist past dating from the 1960s, but in the 1980s, the Greens, of whom he is now a representative, had a relatively extreme view on the one-sided abandonment of nuclear defences by NATO. Since the 1990s, and right up to the present day, Mr. Fischer has taken a further extreme position—he supports the development of the most unified type of European state. He has stated that openly. He has consistently, throughout his political career—if one can dignify the earlier parts of it with that term—taken extreme positions. How has such a man risen to be Foreign Minister of his country on such a small proportion of the vote?
Mr. Stephen Twigg: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Dr. Lewis: I look forward to hearing the hon. Gentleman's explanation.
Mr. Twigg: The German system to which the hon. Gentleman alludes is an almost purely proportional
82WH
system. Does he accept that the system proposed by the Jenkins commission is not such a system, so 7 per cent. of the popular vote would be unlikely to secure any automatic representation in the House of Commons?
Dr. Lewis: That does not affect my argument. The answer to the question that I was posing can be summed up in two words—coalition Governments. All systems proposed for the conducting of elections must deal with the following question: will the outcome be government by the party that wins most votes in the election, or government by coalition? The Jenkins system, to which the hon. Gentleman refers, would tend to lead to coalition Governments as the norm. Systems that lead to coalition Governments allow small parties with a small proportion of the vote to exert disproportionate influence on the Government. A coalition must be formed to get a majority in Parliament, and that cannot be done without the support of small parties. Do those small parties say, "We recognise that we enjoy a relatively small amount of support in the country, so we will settle for an equivalently small amount of influence in the Government"? Do they heck. They exploit that system for everything it is worth, and ensure that they get positions and power in the Government that are wholly out of line with the extent of their support in the country.
Mr. Martin Linton rose—
Mr. Austin Mitchell rose—
Dr. Lewis: I shall give way first to the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton) and then to the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell).
Mr. Linton: Has the hon. Gentleman read the Jenkins report? I ask that because it goes to some lengths to work out simulations of the effect that the Jenkins system would have had on the last five elections, from 1979 onwards. The report comes to the conclusion that the system would have led to the same overall result in 1979—it would have been better spread geographically and the majority might have been smaller, but the outcome would have been the same. The results of the 1983 and 1987 elections would also have been the same. There would have been a different outcome in 1992, but the hon. Gentleman will accept that that was a closely fought and unusual election. The outcome in 1997 would have been the same. The Jenkins report refutes the whole basis of his argument.
Dr. Lewis: I do not accept that. I read the report before I took part in the debate on 5 November 1998— November is an appropriate date for an attack on the parliamentary system. It was clear that its recommendations would tend to lead to a greater proportionality between the number of Members of Parliament elected and the number of votes cast than is the case under first past the post. Why would that be a bad thing? The answer is simple: no Government elected in Britain, at least since the second world war, have achieved anything like 51 per cent. of the vote. Even the present Government achieved only 43 per cent. of the vote. Under a system that would lead to proportionality in outcomes, even a Government with Labour's level of

83WH
support at the previous general election would still be dependent on an alliance with another party to form a majority in Parliament.
Mr. Mitchell: The hon. Gem leman is criticising coalitions as a system, but if that is what people vote for—if the result of their deliberations and votes is that there is no clear majority for one party—that is what people should get. That is a fair democratic verdict. The reverse of that is to say that people should have imposed on them a party with a minority of votes, one that people do not especially want and that most of them voted against. That is a fairly exact description of, say, Margaret Thatcher's Government in the 1980s. Such a Government are then free to use the enormous power of the centralised Executive of this country to do what they want with the system. That is exactly what happened. It is a dictatorship of the minority.
Dr. Lewis: The question to be considered is whether it would be fairer to have, as a result of an election, a combination of parties that offered its junior partner or partners disproportionate amounts of power. The snag with what is recommended is not only that small parties in coalition Governments have far more power than they deserve according to their support in the country, but that the electorate have little say in the policies that will result from the process. Under the present system, in which the winning party tends to form a majority Government on its own, the people know that they can subsequently hold that party to account for what it proposed in its election manifesto. Under a system that leads to combination and coalition-style government, the policies produced by the process are the result of backroom deals and bargaining between the parties that form the coalitions, and they may bear little if any resemblance to the manifestos proposed to the electorate in the first place. I have pointed out before that Dr. Robert Waller, the well Known psephologist, has said that any move towards proportional systems of government would be the greatest transfer of power from the people to the politicians in British political history. I am sure that that is true.
Bearing in mind your strictures, Mr. McWilliam, about keeping contributions short, given the time available for this debate, I shall make a couple of points quickly. I alluded to the first in my earlier intervention about the Liberal Democrats. For many years, they and their predecessor parties have maintained that the voting system is unfair, and that fairness and proportionality are one and the same. If that is a position of principle, they should be at the forefront of those rejecting the simple alternative vote system. As my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) pointed out in his excellent speech, the Labour Government, who were elected with a majority of 169 under the present first-past-the-post system, would have had a majority of 245 under AV.
In other words, AV tends to exaggerate the disproportionality of the result. Therefore, if the Liberals, who claim that proportionality equals fairness, acted on principle, they should reject AV. They do not act on principle, and they do not reject AV, because they know that, proportionality or no proportionality, AV will increase the number of Liberal Democrat seats gained at a general election. That is all that really motivates them.
84WH
I can ask the same question of members of the Labour party's first-past-the-post group. There are two possible motivations for what they are doing. Some of them are acting on principle, because, like me, they believe that a strong Government and a strong Opposition are important. Others are motivated by the knowledge that under a proportional system many Labour Members of Parliament who currently hold seats on a minority of the vote would lose them. Those members of the Labour first-past-the-post campaign are willing to accept the unalloyed alternative vote, which would avoid the proportional route while damaging the Tories and keeping marginal seats safe.
I believe that the Prime Minister has gone cold on proportional representation because he has studied the results under proportional representation in the Scottish Parliament and the National Assembly for Wales. I come from Wales, where they used to weigh Labour votes rather than counting them. However, under proportional representation Labour could not obtain a majority of seats in the Assembly, despite the long tradition of Welsh support for Labour. What has happened in Scotland and Wales? The Labour party has had to form coalitions with the Liberal Democrats, the party that came third. That gives the Liberal Democrats power out of proportion to their support in Scotland or Wales.
Democracy requires a clear result at the end of the electoral process. A Government who can cobble together a coalition can defy the will of the people. The fact that Governments stand or fall according to the votes of the people benefits democracy and contributes to the health of the country. It avoids the corruption that inevitably comes from the intricacies, manoeuvrings and disreputable nature of coalition building. I strongly urge hon. Members to realise that the reason for the health of British democracy, in comparison with so many of the systems on the continent and elsewhere, is that our system gives voters a clear choice and makes it easy for them to remove a Government who have failed to keep their promises.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. John McWilliam (in the Chair): Order. Before I call the next hon. Member I should point out that the winding-up speeches should start at half past 10, to give the Opposition spokesman and the Minister adequate time.
10.22 am
Mr. Stephen Twigg: Thank you, Mr. McWilliam. I shall bear that in mind.
It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis). I note that he ascribed motives of self-interest to some hon. Members, whether in the Liberal Democratic party or the Labour first-past-the-post group. I am sure that there is no such self-interested motivation among Conservatives who support a system which, over 50 years of general elections in which the Labour and Conservative vote has been remarkably similar, has produced Conservative Governments 70 per cent. of the time. Sometimes those who argue against electoral reform claim that those of us who favour it deal only with the issue of

85WH
proportionality of representation, not with the issue of proportionality of power. Looking at the argument in the way that I have just outlined reveals that massively disproportionate power was exercised by the Conservative party in the last century, partly because the electoral system works as other hon. Members have explained this morning.
The constitutional reform programme is one of the Government's most exciting undertakings since 1997—although much remains to be done and there are many loose ends. Many people expected that if the Labour party was elected with a big majority, the constitutional reform plans developed in Opposition would be abandoned. Far from it; they have proceeded. In many ways the programme is the legacy of the late John Smith, the former leader of the Labour party. John Smith did not support electoral reform for the House of Commons, but recognised that it was an important, burning issue, and one that should be decided by the people in a referendum. That is why he gave a commitment to set up an independent commission, and why I believe that a referendum will take place in the next Parliament.
Many of the arguments used by those who oppose reform are arguments against a pure system of proportional representation, as is used in Israel and Germany. Many of us who have long supported reform favour broad proportional representation. However, that is not what the Jenkins commission proposes. It proposes a system that builds on the strengths of first past the post, and the positive aspects of the British system, but seeks to remedy some of its faults, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden) referred.
The system proposed is uniquely British in seeking to retain a constituency link and prevent the situation that was outlined by the hon. Member for New Forest, East—that of permanent coalition and disproportionate power for smaller parties. I accept that it would make hung Parliaments or coalitions more likely than under first past the post, but it would not result in permanent coalition as in Israel and Germany, which have much purer systems. Last year the Labour party, through its national policy forum and its conference, decided to reaffirm the commitment to hold a referendum prior to reform. However, a decision was also taken to look at how the new systems for Scotland, Wales, London and the European Parliament bed down. That is sensible, and an important contribution to the debate.
Today's debate is focused on the relative merits of the alternative vote and the alternative vote plus. I believe that an alternative vote system would represent an improvement on the first-past-the-post system, for the reasons outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Northfield. However, I do not think that that kind of reform is sufficient to meet the need. The remit of the Jenkins commission—which had a tough challenge was—to seek a system that would deliver greater proportionality, greater voter choice and stable government. Clearly, AV delivers greater voter choice and is positive in terms of stability of government, but,
86WH
as various hon. Members have said, it does not deliver greater proportionality. The "plus" in AV-plus is, therefore, essential.
We must address the question of electoral deserts. In 1997, almost one in five people in Scotland and Wales voted Conservative, but not a single Conservative Member was elected there. About one in four of the people who voted in Surrey and Dorset voted Labour, yet there are no Labour Members in those counties. In north London, part of which I represent, there are no Liberal Democrat Members, although about one in six of the electorate there voted for the Liberal Democrats.
Not only would AV-plus give greater voter choice within the constituency. but significant minorities—such as Conservative voters in Scotland, Labour voters in Surrey and Liberal Democrat voters in north London—would have the opportunity to secure additional representation through the top-up members. That is a clever way of dealing with the problem without either delivering permanent coalition, or giving power to very small parties, which the high threshold would prevent. AV-plus recognises that large numbers of votes are wasted and that wasting votes feeds public cynicism about politics, and it tries to give a voice to significant minorities in constituencies in various parts of the country.
We are now in the run-up to a general election campaign. As my hon. Friend the Member for Northfield said, all the parties will focus their energies on certain constituencies and make much less effort in other constituencies. One of the features of the cynicism to which many speakers have referred is low turnout in elections—there have been miserably low turnouts in recent parliamentary by-elections, local elections and European elections. A system that encourages parties to focus their energies in a minority of seats contributes to such low turnouts. In 1997, the highest turnouts in the country, by and large, were in hotly contested marginal constituencies. The low turnouts were in constituencies that parties—especially the Labour party—tended to take for granted. If we want to connect people with politics, political parties must take their message nationwide. That will happen only under a system in which people's votes count, regardless of where they live, and people can vote according to their conviction rather than tactically.
Mr. Purchase: Like me, my hon. Friend will be campaigning hard for Labour candidates wherever he finds them and can support them. Does he agree that our aim in life as politicians is to ensure the largest possible vote for every Labour candidate and to return a Labour candidate in every seat? If not, which Tories, fascists, communists—or Greens, browns, blues and pinks—would he like to be elected?
Mr. Twigg: As a Labour Member of Parliament and a member of the Labour party, of course I want people to vote Labour throughout the country and to achieve the best possible Labour representation in this place—but we could have a system that enabled people to vote according to their conviction rather than tactically. In last year's by-election in Romsey, the Labour vote collapsed. I do not believe that the Labour party is uniquely unpopular in Romsey. Rather, ordinary Labour voters decided to vote for the Liberal

87WH
Democrats, for tactical reasons. I would prefer a system that enabled Labour voters in Romsey to vote out of conviction for the Labour candidate, and the Labour party. The system that the Jenkins commission devised is one such system, and I look forward to a referendum campaign, so that the people, who should make the decision, can do so.
10.31 am
Mr. Robert Maclennan: I welcome the initiative of the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) in introducing the debate. It is not the first time that he has initiated such a debate, although on the previous occasion, in June 1999, he spoke for his party. I noted that on that occasion he concluded his speech by saying:
In our hearts, we know that PR for Westminster is dead.—[Official Report, 23 June 1999; Vol. 333, c. 1187.]
If he thought that it was dead in the summer of 1999, why is he resurrecting the issue today?
The right hon. Gentleman raised several important questions about the Government's intention, and speculated about a clandestine arrangement between the Government and the Liberal Democrats. I must disabuse him of the idea that if such an arrangement existed it would be kept secret. It is well known that before the last general election the Labour party and my party reached agreement on the programme of constitutional reform. The agreements were not clandestine. We held a press conference and published a document detailing several proposals for constitutional reform, including commitments on the introduction of proportional representation for Westminster and on holding a referendum, which were embodied in the manifestos of both parties. If we make agreements of which we are proud, we shall no doubt trumpet them to the country. It is our view that for constitutional reform, it is highly desirable to proceed with the broadest possible support across the parties, as such change is intended to be stable and long lasting, and not to be capable of being displaced as a result of changes of Government, as other legislation might be.
Another general point of some importance has emerged in the debate. The hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) suggested that the system of voting advocated by the Jenkins commission would result in continuous coalition government, which would enable minority parties to wield disproportionate influence. I question whether the hon. Gentleman has read the Jenkins report sufficiently carefully or sufficiently recently, because that issue is firmly and squarely covered in the report, which demonstrates with conclusive power that that Would not be the consequence of its implementation. Although the recommended system adheres to the requirement that it be broadly proportionate, it does not give absolute proportionality. The supremely important task of determining the system should be a matter for the electorate. A number of other considerations—there were four criteria—outweighed, or at least modified, the commitment to proportionality. Not least of those were the requirement for stable government and the retention of the link between Members of Parliament and their constituencies.
Are the wishes of the electorate truly reflected under the present system, when minorities are clearly sufficient to establish Governments? The hon. Member for
88WH
Battersea (Mr. Linton) mentioned what would have happened at the 1992 election—the only one of the last five elections that the Jenkins report said would have resulted in a different configuration of government. The 1992 election resulted in what was effectively a divided Government, in which the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire, who introduced the debate, was a luminary. With the help of his Department, he took it upon himself to carry through the privatisation of the railways as though that were the settled will of the British people—as though it were what they wanted. I do not know the views of those inside the Conservative Government on that issue, but in many respects, it was a dishonest coalition, totally divided on the major issue of Europe and the Maastricht Treaty.
I recall that that Government depended on the support of the Liberal Democrats, who went into the Lobby and voted for a policy that large numbers of Conservative Members were not prepared to agree with.
Mr. Mitchell: Shame on you.
Mr. Maclennan: The hon. Gentleman is perfectly entitled to that opinion, but it was our view that the will of the country was much closer to that of those who were leading the Government than that of the large minority who were, ostensibly, sustaining them as a dishonest coalition.
The time has come to recognise that when the country's voice is not clear, as quite often happens, it is better to have a Government of coalition who seek to bring together policies that are acceptable across the board and command widespread support in the country. It is not enough, as has been suggested by Conservative Members, to say, "Oh, well, we can put it all right when the Government stand at a general election." That was the thrust of the right hon. Gentleman's argument, but we are still stuck with the wretched mess of the privatised railways, and with Railtrack, which were both the result of that dishonest coalition. The general election did not resolve that issue, and it would have been better if such policies had not been pursued.
The prospects for a change in our voting system remain bright, because British people are essentially fair minded and conscious that the systems that have been introduced in Scotland, Wales and the European Parliament—I can speak authoritatively about Scotland—are working well and reflecting in the decisions of government the measures that enjoy broad support throughout the country.
Sir George Young: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Maclennan: Yes, but this must be the only time that I give way.
Sir George Young: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer a key question? Would his party support a referendum that offered a choice between first past the post and AV? Would he regard that as in keeping with the agreement between his party and the Labour party?
Mr. Maclennan: AV is the system that would undoubtedly favour the Liberal Democrats more clearly

89WH
than any other—indeed, to an almost distorting extent—and ensure the largest representation of Liberal Democrats in the House. However, we have never made a secret of the fact that we would advance not AV but AV-plus; we would not choose to put forward any alternative to the Jenkins report. There is no equivocation about that; there is no clandestine agreement or any kind of agreement on that issue, between my party and the Labour party.
We have already compromised our view that the single transferable vote system is the preferable one, as it is more proportional. We accepted the Jenkins report proposal, which, retaining as it does the link between the Member and the constituency, is the one most likely to commend itself to the British people. I underline, too, our judgment that the top-up arrangements do not sever that link, as they are based on wider constituencies—counties and cities. There is a long history of parliamentary representation from counties and cities, even after the reform Acts of the 19th century.
We look forward to the Labour party carrying forward constitutional reform in the next Parliament, if it is re-elected as a Government, with or without the participation of my own party. We hope that it will complete the modernisation of government programme that it has begun with great distinction.
10.42 am
Mr. Dominic Grieve: This has been a fascinating debate. My right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) is greatly to be commended for giving us the opportunity to debate these matters.
The debate has raised two issues. First, we have discussed the merits of the different systems. I was struck by the comment of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden) that all those AVs and AV-pluses did not, or could not, deliver perfect forms of democracy. We should count ourselves fortunate in that, however, because the only people who tried to practise perfect democracy were the Athenians, who tended to cut off the heads of their Executive at the end of their yearly mandate because they had failed to fulfil the criteria given them by the assembled people.
We start on the basis that we are not seeking pure democracy, which is unachievable. We seek, instead, parliamentary democracy with accountable government. The official Opposition have always been wary of the various concoctions put forward to improve the existing system. It may be worth restating that that system works because there is clarity of choice and, above all, a real opportunity for the electorate to get rid of unpopular Governments, as they did in 1997 with the Conservative Government and in 1979 with the Labour Government. Under this system, too, we do not have the politics of "transformismo" so beloved of Mr. Crispi in the Italy of the 19th century, whereby Governments who incurred the utter displeasure of the electorate would hold an election and—hey, presto—a new coalition would emerge, with Mr. Crispi still in control. That went on for a long time; that system is, undoubtedly, a source of corruption.
We would do well to ponder the fact that political corruption is so absent from this country, because many of our western European partners—France, in
90WH
particular— do not have such a good record. The example of Israel is telling in that respect, as that country has a system whereby clarity of decision making by government is almost impossible. Small and extreme minorities can hold the Government to ransom, which produces, all in all, an undesirable mix.
Secondly, we discussed the link between Members of Parliament and their constituencies. I was interested to hear the comments made about those links by the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) and the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Twigg). The new system in Scotland has clearly broken the constituency links between MPs and their constituencies, because it offers constituents an alternative place, or person, to go to with their problems and grievances.
Mr. Stephen Twigg:: It offers a choice.
Mr. Grieve: That may be a choice, but it has a demerit that the hon. Gentleman might do well to ponder. A feature of Members of Parliament is that we represent all our constituents. It does not matter whether they voted for the Liberal Democrat or the United Kingdom Independence party candidate—they have a right to treat us as the people who will act on their grievances. In Scotland, however, people pick the person whose political view best represents theirs, which has a bad effect on the way in which business is conducted in this House and on the willingness of Members of Parliament to take up matters for constituents who do not support their party. That has clearly happened in Scotland, and my party has benefited, because list Members have been able to attach themselves to particular areas and constituencies.
I have dealt with the principles, and I am sorry that I do not have time to develop those matters further. My right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire touched upon how we are proceeding to resolve the issue. That is a relevant point, and I hope that the Minister will deal with it. There was nothing wrong in the suggestion that a referendum should be held on proportional representation. John Smith is said to have been instrumental in making that part of Labour party policy, although he did not believe in PR himself. He should be commended for that. The Government were elected in 1997 on the basis that they would offer choices on matters such as the euro and proportional representation, which would be placed before the electorate through referendums. That is a sign of a mature Government, I suppose, as it implies that the electorate may reject the choice that it is offered, even if the Government favour another outcome.
I have been worried by the way in which the past three and a half years have unfolded because, as my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire correctly said, the Government have gone through a series of somersaults and convolutions as they have wriggled out of a crystal-clear commitment to give the electorate a choice. We are entitled to speculate why that has happened, and I shall make several suggestions.
First, the Government, far from wishing to allow the electorate mature choices and then to accept its verdict, are wedded to the idea of spin and the need to succeed at all costs. They cannot tolerate the thought of the jolt

91WH
that they would suffer if they were to ask a referendum question and their view of the desirable outcome were rejected. Far from using referendums a mature tool of government, they want to use them after the manner of Napoleon III, to provide a boost and sustenance to a populist Government. The Prime Minister is, in that sense, Napoleon III writ small.
Secondly, the Prime Minister, is a man of great sensitivity and sensibility, and requires the constant reinforcement of public opinion for his light to continue shining. That is what I call "the Tinkerbell factor". If, for any reason, the light were snuffed out by an audience refusing to give him the expected answer—as happened with the Women's Institute last year—the Prime Minister's light rapidly starts to flicker and fade. I suggest that that is why no referendum has taken place.
There is ample evidence that the British electorate, which has a good dose of common sense, far from desiring such a change in the system, realises that it would represent a massive transfer of power from the electorate to government, and does not wish to endorse it. That has placed the Government in a difficulty from which they have been quite unable to escape. I have to say to the hon. Member for Southgate that it was fascinating to listen to his speech, but he never provided any explanation why the promise had not been honoured—although it was crystal clear.
The hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross said that he could not understand why we had resurrected this issue. We have not resurrected it, but we have disinterred it— preferably so as to drive a stake through its heart. The sooner this question can be resolved by the electorate—I believe it will be resolved by a decisive "No" to these various convoluted proposals—the better. The Minister has to tell us today why that choice has not been offered, when it was a clear election promise. That is what we wait to hear with bated breath.
10.50 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. David Lock): This has been an interesting debate, and I sincerely congratulate the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) on having secured it. Strong views have been expressed on both sides, and passion, perhaps not always followed by logic, has characterised the discussion.
I am extremely grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the clarity with which he has put the six questions that he raised in his letter to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Department, the Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien). Given the amount of time available, rather than respond to all the points raised by hon. Members, I propose to go through those six questions and provide him with answers, so that he can appreciate the Government's position. I hope that that will be the most constructive use of the limited time available.
The first question the right hon. Gentleman asked was: does the Minister agree that the alternative vote system would not deliver his manifesto commitment of a proportional alternative to first-past-the-post?
92WH
The manifesto commitment was to a referendum on the voting system for the House of Commons. An independent commission on voting systems was to be appointed early, to recommend a proportional alternative to the first-past-the-post system.
A number of issues arise from that manifesto commitment. The first is that the commission was to be appointed to make recommendations, not to fix the alternative—and indeed, that was what happened. I think that the right hon. Gentleman is focusing on the question whether the alternative vote system could be said to be a system of proportional representation. That is a matter of semantics.
Rather than acting like someone out of "Alice in Wonderland" and saying that words mean precisely what I say they mean, I went to a dictionary of politics and looked up "alternative vote". It has an interesting definition—the system of proportional representation in which electors cast a second vote, and perhaps further votes, which come into play if their first preference candidate finishes at the bottom of the poll.
It is clear from that definition that the alternative vote system is a form of alternative proportional representation within the meaning of the expression, so the answer to the right hon. Gentleman's first question is that AV would be a form of proportional representation, were the Government to put that forward to Parliament in a Bill for consideration at a later date.
Sir George Young: I agree with Lord Jenkins, who came to the opposite conclusion—that, far from relieving disproportionality, the alternative vote is capable of substantially adding to it. The Minister disagrees with Jenkins.
Mr. Lock: No; I think that the right hon. Gentleman and I are asking different questions about Jenkins. He asks whether the alternative vote would produce a form of proportional representation. I have referred him to the dictionary definition, which accepts that it is a form of proportional representation. Therefore, within the terms of the manifesto commitment, it is appropriate.
The Jenkins report asked whether that was the best form of system for electing people to Westminster, which is an entirely different question. The right hon. Gentleman referred to paragraph 82 of the Jenkins report—which sets out the problems with the alternative vote—carefully gliding over paragraph 81, which explained how the alternative vote would meet four of the set criteria. There was a balance.
Secondly, the right hon. Gentleman asked: does the Minister accept the commitment in the 1997 election to hold a referendum on PR will not be kept?
The answer is that there was a commitment to set up a commission, and for there to be a referendum. Once the commission had reported, the Government had started a debate, but one does not start a debate by defining the result of that debate, and it remains the policy of the Government that there will be a referendum.
The right hon. Gentleman's next question was: can the Minister confirm that the statement made by the Under-Secretary of State, Home Office, the hon. Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton East (George Howarth) in the debate on 5 November 1998, col. 1110

93WH
and 1111, remains Government policy? That is, the commitment that when the referendum is held, it will ask voters to choose between the first-past-the-post system and the Jenkins recommendations.
I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that I have read with care the words spoken by my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East—who is now the Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office—in that debate. He clearly said that in introducing the alternative, he was starting a debate. As a debate gets under way, one asks what would be the right way to proceed. It is not right to say that the proposed debate on the alternative to be proposed in due course is settled before the debate has taken place. In any event, as the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate, there is a process to be followed.
The Government will have to bring forward an alternative, which will have to be put to Parliament in a Bill setting up the referendum. In the end it will be the decision of Parliament what precise alternative is decided, before the matter is considered in a referendum. Therefore, there are a number of stages to pass through before a referendum is held.
However, if it helps, I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that no decision has been taken on the precise form of the question that will be proposed to Parliament in any such Bill. To clarify that, he must wait for the next Labour manifesto.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about the Foreign Secretary's comments on "Breakfast with Frost". I repeat that no decision has been taken. The right hon. Gentleman might draw inferences from the close and constructive working relationship between the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister, which might lead him to suggest that in the discussions in setting up the Labour manifesto for the next general election, the Foreign Secretary's views might bear considerable weight—and his inferences might be correct—but in the
94WH
end, he will have to wait to read the next Labour manifesto to know what the next Government's platform is.
I was intrigued by the right hon. Gentleman's fifth question. He asked whether it was the intention of the Government, when seeking the endorsement of the electorate, to offer every voter in Britain the opportunity of voting for a Labour candidate. That seems to be the nub of what is bothering him—the prospect that in some seats at the next general election, there will be either a Liberal Democrat or a Labour party candidate, and the traditional anti-Conservative majority will coalesce around one candidate. I am afraid that that is a matter for the Labour party, not the Government.
I am trying to be constructive, and I realise that the right hon. Gentleman will want to raise the matter with the Labour party, so I shall suggest to him a letter that he could send to the general secretary of the party. I suggest that he puts his case along the following lines:
Dear Margaret—
That is, Margaret McDonagh—
As you know, we Conservatives did not do too well in the 1997 election: in fact, to quote my colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring in the debate referred to on 5 November, "we were slaughtered". I am sure that you would think it right, in the interests of democracy, that it should not happen again. It is just not right that we Conservatives, who see ourselves as the natural party of power, should be out of office for too long. As this is a private letter, I accept we made a complete Horlicks of the last Government, but, with present company excepted, you saw who was in Government and you "cannot make bricks without straw".
This gets me to my main point. I am very worried that you and the Liberal Democrats might be getting too close. You know that we Conservatives rely on you and the Liberal Democrats splitting the anti-Conservative vote to let us through the middle. That is how it has been, and in my view rightly so. Now if you introduce this alternative vote nonsense or, even worse, if you withdraw your candidate in favour of a "white knight", or a journalist in a "white suit" as the case may be, or even worse a Liberal Democrat, we simply will not get enough MPs to form an Opposition. That is not how things are supposed to work. I am sure that you would not like that to happen. We will get very, very cross and, to quote Mr. Fox, we might get slaughtered again.

Devolution
11 am
Mr. Austin Mitchell: I am recorded as wanting to debate devolution, which is, in fact, a subterfuge for the real issue of the debate, on which I wish to concentrate. It was suggested to me that one could not raise the subject because it demanded legislation from Government. My real preoccupation is regional government in the best part of this country, which is Yorkshire and Humberside, the Geordie nation and the north-west, and the prospects and effects of devolution on them.
I am not a critic of devolution. The Government have made a brave start and were right to do so. It is a system that is beginning to cause tensions. We cannot make an omelette without breaking eggs and there are bound to be conflicts. Such conflicts are good—they are democratic and involve people. I welcome devolution as a recognition of the new politics that we need in a country that has always been too centralised on London in terms of population, careers, government, and in every other respect. London is the great wen. Bureaucracy is centralised and decisions are taken and then handed down to the supplicant rest of the country. London has always been too dominant. It is more dominant in our system than any other country's capital city. People are reacting against that centralisation and dominance.
Last year's surveys on the state of the nation were interesting. There is widespread feeling that this country is not more democratic, that it is too centralised, and that people do not have enough involvement. We face a society now in which people have had a taste of power and have power as consumers. They are taking decisions as consumers all the time. People are waiting to serve them as consumers. They do not have the same power, influence, or ability to control their destinies as citizens as they do as consumers. That is an imbalance in their lives that they would like rectified. they want power and influence as citizens, and they want to be heard—[Interruption.]—like the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans), who I will not hear for the moment, if he will forgive me. People want to be listened to, and a machine that is centralised on Londoners, that does not have regional government, that has devolution only for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, cannot listen to them. They want government brought closer to them, and that is the basic argument for devolution. After all, it is a universal trend—it is going on in most European Union countries. There is even decentralisation in France which is, traditionally a very centralised society.
Mr. Denis MacShane: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Mitchell: No, because my hon. Friend is going to make some petty, pedantic point about Europe.
There is a universal human and governmental trend to establish regional government, which has happened in France, Spain and Italy, and was already there in Germany with the system of the Länder. We should follow that natural instinct and respond to the new politics.
96WH
I have been criticised by my Euro-sceptic friends—I have some Euro-sceptic friends—who argue that regionalism and decentralisation or devolution are a European plot to cut out the middle man of central Government and create a direct relationship between Brussels and the regions. That has nothing to do with devolution, which is absolutely right in its own right.
Mr. MacShane: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?
Mr. John McWilliam (in the Chair): Order. The hon. Gentleman should not heckle.
Mr. MacShane: I support my hon. Friend in not referring to the European Union, which has nothing to do with the argument. We should look to America, the world's richest country, with its 50 regional assemblies, governors and state administrations. On the other hand, we might look to Switzerland, which is Europe's richest country, has a population similar to Yorkshire's, has 24 regional parliaments, Ministers, assemblies and so on.
Does my hon. Friend share my regret that the Yorkshire Post, our regional newspaper, supports entirely the Tory view that everything should be centralised in London and that devolution to Yorkshire should not be on the political agenda? When will our main regional newspaper speak up for Yorkshire in this matter?
Mr. John McWilliam (in the Chair): Order. May I give the hon. Gentleman an admonition? Interventions should be brief.
Mr. Mitchell: I am grateful for that sagacious, intelligent and smart intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane), although it was not exactly what I had expected. However, it raises an important and valid point. It is a tragedy and a betrayal that the Yorkshire Post is taking the position to which he referred. It used to be part of the Yorkshire Conservative Newspaper Company Ltd., which is no doubt why it takes such a position. It is wrong to do so because it does not represent the feeling of the region.
The present matter has nothing to do with the argument for or against Europe; I do not understand European intentions, because I am not an expert on abnormal psychology. Devolution is right in itself and we should proceed with it. It has made a brave beginning, so we should go on and extend the benefits of devolution to the north, where it is much needed.
Being a northerner rather than an Englishman, I would say that the north is the best part of the country, but a disadvantaged part. It was always the manufacturing heartland—the area that made things, the powerful producer. The south had the job of manipulating money. People from the south went into professions—to be barrow boys, or whatever—but not into production as northerners do. That gave us a world standing, an independence, a confidence and a pride.
The manufacturing base in the north has been destroyed, partly by the dominance of southern money, manipulation and financial interests, and partly by the incompetence of Governments. That process of destruction continues, with the manufacturing heart still

97WH
shrinking because of the over-valued pound, which strikes a vital blow at the dominance of the north. Our society has become dependent because our industry has been destroyed, which means higher unemployment and lower earnings and gross domestic product per capita.
A begging-bowl mentality has been forced on us because the job of local government is no longer to regenerate the areas but to go to London and shuttle up and down with begging bowls. The only increase in business that that causes is for the railways. Local government must beg for projects, grants, action areas and all the things that the Government provide. We are dependent and, in that situation, we need to be able to do more for ourselves, take control of our own destinies and fight back against the trend that has knocked the heart out of the manufacturing north. Once it was the most dynamic and richest part of the country—now it is the part with the greatest social problems.
Mr. Nigel Evans: Again, the hon. Gentleman paints the picture of devolution as the panacea for all the ills facing the north, just as it was supposed to be for Wales—although it has certainly not proven to be the case. He says that people want to be listened to. That is true, but they do not want to be overgoverned—and they will be governed at the levels of Europe. Westminster, county council, district council and parish council. Are they not being over-governed? In many cases they just want politicians off their backs, so that they can carry on their businesses.
Mr. Mitchell: I knew that I should not have given way to the hon. Gentleman. The European issue is irrelevant in this context. We are not talking about that. People want to be heard and to influence the people who are taking the decisions that will affect their lives, whether in Europe or Britain. Bringing government closer to people gives them that influence. Devolution—[Interruption.]
Mr. John McWilliam (in the Chair): The hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) should not heckle. I have warned hon. Members about that.
Mr. Mitchell: I am grateful to you, Mr. McWilliam.
Devolution affects us because it increases competition for public spending and provides the development that attracts the footloose industries that we need. Devolution provides Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and London with a powerful platform from which to argue for a better deal, and they will do so—they are arguing the case already. It also makes those areas more competitive in attracting industry and development. They have not only the regional development agencies that other areas have, but the synergy, drive and dynamism of democracy pushing those agencies on.
Those areas will be powerful competition to the parts of the country that we represent. I do not begrudge them higher levels of public spending and the centre should help them in that way, but we need the same platform. I want English regions to compete effectively and to have the same power that they have in Scotland.
Mr. Jim Cousins: London is the decisive new area that we are confronting.
98WH
Does my hon. Friend feel that his constituents are expressing concern about the fact that the financing of the London underground system is now an important issue of national politics, whereas important regional issues in the north of England do not register in the same way—because London has devolution?
Mr. Mitchell: Yes, there is that type of hostility. Everyone is demanding more for London—more for people who have enough already. Spending must be boosted at all levels, but we want to compete. We want our case to be put as effectively as possible. We should get our share and have a greater ability to raise money for ourselves and tackle our own problems.
Devolution is a big boon, but it creates problems for the rest of the country and destabilises the constitution. We now have an unbalanced constitution. That needs to be rectified—not only so that we can solve the west Lothian problem, which is traditionally asked in this context, but so that we bring the rest of the country up to the level that has been created in Scotland. There are various ways of doing that. The proposal of several Conservative Members is for an English parliament. That is no solution at all. It would be an elephant in a cuckoo's nest—a cuckoo's nest is perhaps the wrong image. It would increase the dominance of London within England. England has a population of about 50 million and Scotland about 5 million—that is unbalanced. The idea of an English parliament is ludicrous.
The proposal of Labour Members, as representatives of the English regions, must be regional government. The process towards regional government should start with the three northern regions. We have a clear and proud regional identity. I am alienated from all the arguments that attempt to define the English and the British because I feel that I am a northener. I keep quiet about the fact that I am a Yorkshireman in Grimsby, because it is in Lincolnshire, but my real identity is that of a northener. We have talked of the Geordie nation. All those areas have their own identity.
Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: The hon. Gentleman is strongly against an English parliament. Given his theme of regionalism, will he tell us how such areas would legislate? Would they come to the House of Commons to do so? The Welsh Assembly must wait for legislation to go through the House of Commons. With further pressure from the other regions of England, this place will become unmanageable.
Mr. Mitchell: I agree that the Welsh Assembly does not have adequate powers and that the centre is choking up, as it is the focus of too many decisions for other areas that should be delegated to those areas. I agree with the hon. Gentleman's basic hypothesis; I will deal with the powers later.
We have a regional identity in the north. We are ready for regional government. All three regions have regional assemblies. A regional convention has been held in the north-east and the north-west, and we have had the first stage in Yorkshire. We want regional government. Evidence collected by opinion polls for the Kilbrandon commission as long ago as 1970, showed that there were strong feelings of isolation from London and a sense that decisions were taken there and imposed on us.

99WH
There was a feeling of alienation—[Interruption]—but it was not stronger than that in Cornwall. I concede that to the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. George).
Mr. Andrew George: I am glad that I have obliged the hon. Gentleman to resume his seat for a moment. He is making a strong point in principle and most hon. Members present agree with him, but what happens if the region itself does not exist? The hon. Gentleman mentioned the Kilbrandon commission report, which makes a strong case for regional identities that do not coincide with the boundaries as defined by the Government. If we want to make regional assemblies work, does the hon. Gentleman agree that we should base them on regions that exist, not on synthetic regions based on bureaucratic convenience?
Mr. Mitchell: I am sympathetic to the hon. Gentleman's argument—perhaps I should call him an hon. Friend, after our labours together on behalf of the fishing industry. His comments highlight a problem that affects Cornwall's relationship with the south-west, rather than the three regions to which I referred.
All three regions have a clear identity, pretty clear boundaries and strong support for regional government, as the Kilbrandon report showed. In some respects, the report showed a stronger sense of regionalism in Yorkshire and the north-east than in Scotland and Wales. Up-to-date public opinion surveys show that a majority of people are in favour of regional government in the north-east and the north-west. There is a fairly even division in Yorkshire, which surprises me. I should have thought that feeling would be stronger there, but the issue is only becoming salient and the majority will build up.
The first priority of the next Labour Government must be regional government and those three regions must lead the way. Counter-arguments are sometimes put—for instance, that the desire for regional government is not uniform throughout the country. I accept that in Hereford, Hereford and Hampshire, regionalism hardly happens, and of course there is no problem in the south-east and London.
However, there is clearly a desire for regional government in the three northern regions, which are the focus of my proposals, and there is no reason why areas that do not have the same instincts and feelings should hold back other areas. We can proceed to regional government on a variable geometry basis, by allowing those areas that have built up a case for regional government, developed regional conventions and drawn up proposals to go ahead.
Spain is a pioneer of such an approach—it is obviously sensible. Regions that want stronger powers and more effective democracy take it, and the ones that do not want that stay as they are. Catalonia and the Basques have pushed much further than other parts of Spain. Why should not the north-east, the north-west and Yorkshire do the same in this country? We should show the others the way.
Given that regional government will be successful, the same pressures will build up in other parts of the country for the same advantages, just as the pressures have built up in the north-east because of the benefits to Scotland. Those areas should start first. They should not be held
100WH
back by the fact that others are more laggardly. Why should the north-east, the north-west and Yorkshire not do the same in this country? We should be showing others the way. Devolution in the northern regions should not be diluted to some common, unimportant level. We should go for the maximum powers.
No doubt we will hear from the Conservatives the criticism that there will be another layer of bureaucracy, but that is obviously nonsense. We are already developing a regional bureaucracy: in fact, it is already there. We have regional government offices, rightly, as they bring government closer to the people—good on the Government, who introduced them. There are regional development agencies, which are a powerful development tool that is right in principle and that I welcome with open arms, even if the one in my area has the title Yorkshire Forward. I represent a constituency in Lincolnshire, which is not happy with that name. However, the principle is right and the development agency is doing a good job.
There are other bureaucracies as well, such as a regional national health service bureaucracy, the Environment. Agency, a bureaucracy on health and safety, the arts bureaucracy and those of other Departments. Each region has many bureaucracies already, but it does not have accountability or democratic control from the region. We are not compounding the problem of bureaucracy, but simply providing a logical accountability and structure of democracy for a bureaucracy that is already in place. If we do that successfully, we will have joined-up government in the regions through co-ordination of the efforts of all those independent bodies. I therefore do not accept that argument.
There is the question of powers. Do we want to be as weak as the Welsh Assembly? No. Wales has had a raw deal. The devolutionary programmes are a basis on which to build. Powers will increase and expand and we should learn from what has happened in Wales. One reason why the majority in the referendum there was so low was that the Assembly was not important enough to grip people, as it did not have enough powers. Therefore, in the northern regions, I want the sort of powers that will fire the imagination, persuade people that they want those powers controlled from their area, and bring those people out to vote. We should go for the maximum.
Should we transfer functions from local government? That question produced problems in Wales and my broad answer is no. Some functions—roads and transport planning, for example—are better handled on a regional basis. In the main, the functions of the regional government and assembly should be functions transferred from London, where central Government are choking under the weight of decisions that would be better taken locally.
There will be arguments and differences of opinion. I went to a meeting of the boy scouts in Grimsby on Friday. They asked why they had to pay for searches on the police computer for certificates for scout leaders when that was free in Scotland. I had no answer. It is one of the divergencies of democracy. I welcome such differences, but we need the power to make our own differences and to take our own decisions. We will have that power if functions are transferred from central Government, who should not and cannot decide

101WH
everything in London. They cannot help the areas by simply doling out more projects and tied specific funding. Rather than using such controls, they need to give us freedom to handle things in our own way. I want the maximum powers handed down and some ability to raise money locally for local purposes, as in Scotland, although, again, it is inadequate.
I am proud of what Labour has done—of the regional development agencies, the building up of unified Government offices in the regions and the better financial deal that we have received. I hope that that will be expanded and improved, but now we have to go on from that. Ours is not a hand-out society. We must bite the bullet. Regional governments are the next step towards re-empowering the northern regions and transferring power to the people, so that we can do things for ourselves, tackle our own problems and get the synergy of democracy behind the development that we need. My conclusion is that what Scotland has, we now want.
11.25 am
Mr. Jim Cousins: I shall be extremely brief as I am conscious that many hon. Members want to speak. I must explain that I find the conventions of this Chamber rather obscure. I am sat behind a nationalist, which for the purposes of the debate is perhaps appropriate.
Mr. Llwyd: What is the hon. Gentleman saying?
Mr. Cousins: I intend the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) no harm whatsoever.
The issue is serious and practical. We are not discussing castles and cathedrals, history and mysticism; we are discussing the practical issues of resources that are beginning to make the people of the English regions, particularly the northern ones, extremely restless. As a result of the Government's programme, we are seeing the strong benefits of devolution. In the north-east of England, which I represent, we see at close hand the benefits of Scottish Government in the programme for warm homes, the decision to deal with long-term care on a different basis from that in England, and in terms of student finance and the important issue of teachers' pay. Not all of that may be deliverable, it may not all work out, but there are real practical benefits to people just over the border.
People just to the south of the border are bound to want to be cut in as well. We want the ability to do some of those things for ourselves. We want to have the same block grant system and the same ability to generate local flexibility about where we apply finance as the Scots, the Welsh and people in Northern Ireland have. That is a political issue that cannot be forever kicked into touch. It is a serious issue that will surface in the next Parliament and will need to be addressed.
I welcome the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions in the House yesterday, when he reiterated his personal commitment to regionalism. In a significant move forward, my right hon. Friend de-coupled the
102WH
issue of local government reform from the movement toward regional government. That is an important new statement of the Government's intentions. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to expand on that. It is a real step forward and clears away one obstacle.
We are not engaged in some constitutional experiment. Mention has already been made of the West Lothian question. If, as a result of pushing for directly elected, democratically accountable government in the northern English regions—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for St. Ives represents a constituency in the south-west, but he does not seem sure where the southwest is, and that is the essential starting point.
Mr. Andrew George: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will bear in mind that there is a movement both in the southwest and in Cornwall. On Monday, the front page of The Western Morning News—which is different from that of the Yorkshire Post—reported 20,000 people supporting the Cornish assembly, including the captain of the local rugby team. There was strong feeling about the campaign and we are very clear about where the boundaries are.
Mr. Cousins: I shall leave that issue, and 20,000 Cornishmen will know why.
Boundaries are an issue to be dealt with by regions. The northern English regions are not burdened by that question. We are clear about where and who we are, and what we want to do. The work on those questions has been done. I am concerned not about the West Lothian question but about the west Newcastle question. The west Newcastle question concerns an area where health and educational experience are among the worst in Britain and where until May 1997 not one major decision that could correct those historic inequalities was being taken, whether in west Newcastle, Newcastle or the region. That is what we want to put right.
The Government have taken a significant forward step in the creation of the regional development agencies. However, it is just the first step along the road. We have had to fight hard even to achieve flexibility in the various streams of money that come to the regional development agency. That will not happen until next year. We are only at the beginning of the argument for a block grant enabling the people of the region, in a democratic assembly, to decide how the resources are to be used, and to choose different courses of action from those taken in other English regions and the rest of Britain. The issue is a practical one of resources and their use, rather than a question of local government reform or broader constitutional issues; it involves giving people the power that they do not yet have to make decisions about what happens to their communities, and to tackle long-term inequalities.
We have seen the example of Scotland, and the positive benefits to the Scottish people that are flowing from what happened there. It cannot be reasonable to expect the people of the north-east of England to be patient for ever, with that example north of the border; indeed, it is already affecting their decisions about where to make a home and plan their futures. Many people in the north-east have such choices and mean to take advantage of the Scottish system. The issue will not go away.

103WH
I know that in this morning's short debate there is not time to explore all the issues. However, I remind my hon. Friend the Minister that we are discussing a practical matter of importance, which is already creating a strong echo among the people whom we represent. They are beginning to ask questions about all the matters that I have raised. They are beginning to use the example of London as well as Scotland. I hope that the manifesto on which we shall go to the people at some time in the next 12 months will contain a strong, clear commitment to enabling regions to create a democratically elected regional government if they choose to do so.
I hope that those democratically elected regional governments will be able to command resources and begin to take their own decisions—not just in the area of economic development. They should be able to couple those decisions to others affecting education, training, health and social inequalities, so that we can be given the responsibility for dealing with our historic problems. That will put us in charge and will give our people responsibility to sort out their own future, as well as the rights and freedoms that go with such responsibility.
11.34 am
Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: May I start by dealing with the West Lothian question? It is simple really. The answer is to give the National Assembly for Wales legislative powers, and I shall be off to catch the next bus home.
The Conservatives' response to what has been said this morning will be to complain about the creation of another layer of bureaucracy and so on. The hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) will remember that during the Maastricht debates the clarion call of the Conservatives was subsidiarity. The right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) frequently came home claiming to have secured something on the basis of subsidiarity. Devolution is a similar concept. It is about bringing democratic control down to the lowest reasonable level. It is entirely appropriate for any part of the UK.
We have taken a step forward in Wales, but I am afraid that, as the hon. Member for Great Grimsby said, the Assembly is not a good deal for Wales, because we have to depend on the House to make any changes. There is already too much work for the House, anyway, and that is another reason for devolution, if it is to have any meaning for our constituents and for the areas that we represent.
Like the right hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies), I believe that devolution is a process, not an event. He said that these things develop and have their own momentum—Catalonia is one example. A twin-track approach is necessary, whereby some areas can have more powers and move faster than others, and others do not even sign up to devolution. That is entirely appropriate in terms of a Europe of the regions and it is the way in which we should be approaching the matter. I will not say any more about Europe, because I know that if I do, the hon. Member for Great Grimsby will jump up and down and shout. We do not agree on that.
On the benefits of regionalism, Merseyside has a strong case for having its own authority. I hope that it gets one in the not-too-distant future, because there are
104WH
problems endemic to Wales and Merseyside that we need to sort out. The problems are often different, and there is a difference of emphasis and degree of difficulty and so on.
Mrs. Louise Ellman: The hon. Gentleman should be aware that Merseyside is pleased to be part of the north-west region and is fully involved in campaigning for a north-west assembly. Is he aware that one of the benefits of our current position on devolution is that the north-west development agency has linked up with Liverpool city council, English Partnerships and others to form Liverpool Vision, the first urban regeneration company? That shows some of the benefits of devolution that have already accrued to us.
Mr. Llwyd: I did not know that. I sometimes go to Anfield to watch football, but that is all. I know a little about football, but not much. I am pleased that the hon. Lady has put that on the record, because it is important. It shows that the more power is devolved locally, the more likely it is that the solution appropriate to a given area will be found. That bolsters the theme of the debate.
However, the way in which the National Assembly for Wales has been put together is flawed. If the Assembly decides that it wants legislation, it must then rely on the Secretary of State for Wales to push for that in Cabinet and obtain parliamentary time for an exclusively Welsh Bill. It may have happened last night, but it will not happen often. Clearly it will not happen in the context of the regional chambers that are the theme of the debate.
It is obvious that we need greater powers for Cardiff. The hon. Member for Great Grimsby said that similar powers have been given to Scotland. The Scottish Parliament can make a greater difference than the Welsh Assembly, and it has done so. The Assembly now deals with statutory instruments, which used to be dealt with by the Wales Office and by Westminster, and of which there is a backlog. That is a good step forward and brings the process closer to the people. However, people did not foresee devolution in terms of an Assembly dealing only with statutory instruments.
Mr. Richard Livsey: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that people in this Chamber would be enlightened to discover that there is only one Bill in the Queen's Speech that is specific to Wales? That Bill only extends the powers of the Children's Commissioner, and it received a Second Reading last night. That is snail's pace democracy and it must change. I am sure that he will agree.
Mr. Llwyd: I agree entirely. The hon. Gentleman has been campaigning for a long time for strong devolution, and I fully accept what he says, but it underlines the basic problem—only one Bill has come from the Welsh Assembly.
Another problem is that the Secretary of State is bound by his Cabinet responsibilities. What happens if he is urged to act on behalf of the Assembly and its declared intention puts him in conflict with the Cabinet? The ideas of the Assembly are obviously thrown out of the window, as we saw with the creation of the Strategic

105WH
Rail Authority in the Transport Bill. The Assembly had a firm view about the membership of the SRA, believing also that it should have a Welsh office, but none of those ideas went anywhere. The Secretary of State should have batted for Wales; perhaps he did—we do not know—but he certainly did not win.
The point at issue is whether devolution in Wales will make a difference, but the current situation is a recipe for confusion and complexity because of a build-up of bad feeling. First, the Assembly requires proper legislative power. The model can be adapted and, as the hon. Member for Great Grimsby said, it will develop at its own pace in due course, but many experts now believe that devolution in Wales was flawed. I agree with the hon. Gentleman's final words, when he said that we should go for as much power as we can get and that we should go for the Scottish model.
I am pleased that we have devolution in Wales, but it is only one step forward and more needs to be done. I shall give some examples. For instance, my party, Plaid Cymru, said that the Assembly should decide what should happen with regard to hunting in Wales. On objective 1 funding, the Assembly and the Welsh Affairs Select Committee called on the Government to take further action to ensure matched funding, but Westminster ignored the plea. The Assembly decided that Wales should be GM-free, but Westminster would not allow it. Wales decided on special action with regard to beef, but Westminster told us that we could not do that.
It is no use giving us devolution and then slowly winding it back. Bills now going through the House of Commons are winding power back to Westminster rather than devolving it to Wales. That was the subject of a debate at the Welsh Assembly in which the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Livsey), I and other members of the Welsh Assembly took part. It is vital that we are careful, otherwise devolution will become a sham. Yes, I am pleased that we have devolution, but I stress that it is a process, not an event.
11.42 am
Mrs. Louise Ellman: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) on securing this important and timely debate. I support devolution to the English regions in general, and particularly to the north-west. Devolution to the English regions is the unfinished business of devolution in the United Kingdom. It is unacceptable that, as part of an on-going process suited to their needs and requirements, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and now London should have devolution while the remainder of England is ignored. However, we have come a long way during the past three or four years.
The Government clearly recognise the importance of English regionalism in a way that was not accepted before. The importance of regional devolution to economic development has been recognised and we have started to act upon it. We now have regional development agencies. Their existence, their funding, the flexibility now being awarded to them and the requirement placed on them to draw up regional
106WH
economic strategies show how it is possible to consider the needs and potential of all regions, including urban and rural areas, and I how they can be developed.
Devolution is a powerful tool in dealing with the economic disparities between regions, particularly in gross domestic product. London is still at 145 on the standard scale of 100 for the UK; but it is unacceptable that the north-west is at 88.2, the north-east 78.8 and Yorkshire and Humberside 87.8, particularly as those disparities are widening.
Mr. Jon Owen Jones: Will my hon. Friend comment on a statistic that shows that there are greater regional disparities in the United Kingdom than in any other European country except Germany, where there are particular reasons for that relating to the inclusion of east Germany? Britain has the least devolved system. Those two facts may be connected.
Mrs. Ellman: I agree with my hon. Friend. Those facts are indeed connected. We need regional devolution to enable the regions to examine the potential of their economies. It must take place in such a way that it influences national decisions and European decisions that have a bearing on regional areas. It is not only a matter of GDP, but of increasing disparities and the concentration of factors that bring success to the south-east. London and the south-east are again at the top of the recent competitiveness index; the northern regions are towards the bottom. The population drift is continuing. It is anticipated that more people will leave the northern regions for the already over-heated south-east, and such a problem can be dealt with only by investment and regional devolution.
Over the past four years, we have started to recognise the importance of regional representation, but not only for reasons of economic regeneration. Regional chambers and assemblies have been set up. In the north-west, our regional assembly is strong; it brings together elected local authority councillors with universities, colleges, trade unions, the private sector, the cooperative movement, the voluntary sector, the national health service, the Environment Agency and other bodies. It is an important building block. However, we have a long way to go and what is missing is a clear accountable regional remit. The elected element in our regional assemblies comes from local authorities—[Interruption.]
Mr. John McWilliam (in the Chair): Order. Someone has a mobile telephone in the Room. Will those who have devices that make a noise please switch them off?
Mrs. Ellman: Elected councillors have a remit relating to their local authority area. No one is elected with a remit for the whole region. The regional structure lacks clear, democratic accountability. Yes, the regional development agencies are required to consult the regional chambers and assemblies—and most of them do that extremely well. However, they are responsible to the Minister, not to the region. There is no structure whereby we can have accountability for regional quangos in higher and further education, the environment, the arts, health and elsewhere. There is no open forum in which regional consumer interests can be articulated and considered. Would it not be a good thing

107WH
if the regions could call the regional management of Railtrack to account for its action? Would it not be good if the regions could call the regional structures of the utilities to account for their actions? The region is an important level in many areas, yet it cannot act in the public interest.
As we do not have an elected accountable regional tier, that tier does not have the regional clout that is needed to affect decisions taken at Westminster and in representations in Europe. Will the Minister give thought to two issues of particular importance to the north-west that show the need for elected regional authorities? If we had had an elected assembly in the north-west, would the decision have been taken to move £500 million worth of investment from the Daresbury high-technology laboratory in the north-west to Rutherford in the south-east, in Oxfordshire? I doubt it. Does she agree that it was because of the outrage over that decision, that all public, private and educational sectors in the north-west have come together in a way that has never happened before? I praise the Government for reacting to that, but they must recognise that the decision was unlikely to have been taken had we had a strong, elected, accountable north-west body.
There is a real and current issue regarding economic investment in the north-west and elsewhere. We are struggling with the impact of new definitions of state aid decided by the competition directorate in Brussels. Those definitions have already stopped gap funding, which was important to the north-west, as it was to other regions, and major parts of the European objective 1 programme in Merseyside are now threatened. No doubt that is also the case in other areas. There are now grave delays and possible cancellations in public-private sector partnerships, including one for a proposed business centre in Toxteth, in my constituency.
Based on information given to me by my hon. Friend the Minister, I understand that the Welsh Assembly has taken up the problem, and that progress has been made, while the Government have apparently been unable to make any progress. That leads me to believe that the Welsh Assembly—with powers that its Members wish to be extended—has already shown that it can deliver for Wales in a way that, until now, the Government have not been able to deliver for the north-west and other regions.
This is a time of change. Devolution is a process, not simply an event. We are at a time when changes can be made. In the review of the second chamber, the Wakeham commission recognised the importance of regional representation for the first time. Constitutional conventions have now been set up in Yorkshire and Humberside, the north-west, the north-east and the midlands, and will soon be set up in the south-west. We need elected regions, and I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to give us a commitment that this Government or the following Labour Government will give us the opportunity to make that happen.
Mr. John McWilliam (in the Chair): Order. In order to include Front Bench spokesmen and give the Minister adequate time to answer, we need to start Front Bench speeches by noon. I shall call the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington), but I ask him to remember that admonition.
11.52 am
Mr. Tony Worthington: I am grateful to you, Mr. McWilliam. I speak as an enthusiastic supporter of devolution in Scotland where it has been recognised that devolution is working well and has given a vigorous boost to political life. Every area of political thought now has a focus that did not exist before, and I look back with horror to this place, where major themes such as primary, nursery or further education can go for decades without a debate—that is no exaggeration.
That is now behind us. Every aspect of Scottish life is now focused and there is a recognition of the separateness of Scottish life. On tuition fees, for example, there has been a different solution in Scotland. If that causes embarrassment to some centralists, that is tough. They have to live with it. We had to live with the decision to impose a system without any input from Scottish political thought.
The only people who do not recognise that success are centralists or those in the media who mistake differences for a row. However, we must recognise that there cannot be devolution in some parts of the United Kingdom without there being implications for other parts. We have an unbalanced constitution.
Probably the greatest devolution that has occurred in the UK, to which hon. Members have not referred, is in Northern Ireland. The powers of its 1.6 million people are greater, were one to add them all up, than those of the Scots. Indeed, if one adds them all up, the powers to be different are greater than for any other part of the UK.
Devolution has, however, led to some very strange situations. In Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland, there is not a single Conservative Member—out of 140 Members, there is not a single one from the official Opposition. I doubt whether that will change much at the next election. It means that the Conservatives will start 140 Members behind in England in terms of gaining a majority in the UK. That is very welcome to my party, but anyone who believes that that will not cause problems in the future—although I do not want to return to cuckoos—is living in cloud-cuckoo land.
Distressingly, the only aspect of devolution that is reasonably high on the manifesto agenda is the House of Lords. It would be utterly foolish to proceed with reform of the House of Lords without taking into account the English regional issues that have been raised today. The House of Lords is already largely English, not in terms of its membership—there are Scots peers, Welsh peers and so on—but in terms of its business. Finance matters are not dealt with by the House of Lords, and it is rare for defence Bills or foreign affairs Bills to be considered there. There is no second chamber for the Scottish Parliament or the Northern Ireland Assembly, and there is no discernible demand that there should be. When foxhunting is banned in Scotland, there will be no charade about the Bill going to the House of Lords. The elected representatives of Scotland will have decided, as they have in relation to section 28.
Scottish Bills and Northern Ireland Bills—although they may be for smaller populations—are every bit as complicated, in terms of their implications for the citizenry, as English Bills, but they are dealt with more intelligently. I ask hon. Members to consider the

109WH
Queen's Speech in relation to Scotland. According to the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), it contains 16 Bills, only five of which apply to the United Kingdom. Eleven apply to England or England and Wales, and I accept fully that Wales is bound to proceed to having its own legislative power. The strange thing is that the 140 Members can vote on all Bills, which is untenable.
I point out to my party that the revenge of the people of Scotland for England deciding on Scotland's government was to expel the Tories from the land. Scotland was made a Tory-free zone, which continued until we introduced the assisted seats scheme in the Scottish Parliament.
Important issues must be resolved. The debate this morning about English regional issues has been fascinating. However, there are also important questions about how we relate to the European Parliament. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister referred to the need to have a second chamber in the European Parliament. I do not want to comment on that, although it is an important issue, because we must first decide the role of the House of Commons. We can then decide about the House of Lords, Europe and so on. We cannot go on thinking that Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish devolution does not have implications for democracy. I hope that that will give us time to abandon the belief that we can have democracy without elections.
The proposal to have an appointed House of Lords is very strange. Were I to look around the House of Commons to see who will be going to the House of Lords, I would say to my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) that, although he has added much to the gaiety of life in all of this century and much of the last, he has not constructed his curriculum vitae in order to reach the House of Lords. However, he, and people like him, should be in the House of Lords. An appointed House of Lords, which would favour all those who have constructed their CVs in order to reach it, is not the way ahead.
I welcome the debate, but it is too short. The interest is clear, and the issue has many dimensions. We cannot ignore the phrase that has been repeatedly used about devolution being a process and not an event, because we have many solutions to find, and devolution is at the heart of those solutions.
Mr. Mike Hancock (in the Chair): Order. I draw hon. Members' attention to the time. The Minister and the Opposition spokesman have both agreed to take about 10 minutes. Three more Members wish to speak, and to be fair to everyone, I suggest that the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) takes about six minutes to allow the other two a couple of minutes each. That will enable everyone who wants to participate to do so. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) for finishing when he did.
12 noon
Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Thank you, Mr. Hancock. I shall endeavour to conform to that. This good debate can, must and will be held on the Floor of the House. It needs to be full and extended.
110WH
The dynamic that we forecast that devolution would create is now evident. As a founder member of the Scottish Constitutional Convention, I find it invigorating that our debates about change in Scotland are now spreading out across the United Kingdom. Although it is 10 years later, I genuinely welcome that and the spirit in which hon. Members representing the regions have come here to argue the case to extend devolution. I am sure that they have the full support of all hon. Members who currently represent Scotland, and that may continue to be true after the next election, as the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) suggested.
The hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) highlighted some positive aspects of devolution. One is that, apart from bringing government closer to the people, it allows a genuine diversity of policy options to be tested. In her heyday, one of Mrs. Thatcher's great slogans was, "There is no alternative." It is the most damning indictment of a democracy to say that there is no alternative. Lively democracy involves exploring alternatives. Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and London can now experiment—and, perhaps, make mistakes—with different policy options without the permission or authorisation of the House or Whitehall. That is a fundamentally healthy development. It clearly alarms centralists in the Conservative party, but it exhilarates most people, and it will do a great deal to reconnect voters with both the decision-making and the general political processes. I therefore believe that this debate is good and positive.
I also believe that, as several hon. Members said, debate on devolution will open up the idea of rounding off constitutional reform. The debate relates to how we elect hon. Members to this place, determine policies and share decision making. The dynamic involved must lead to more change.
Some of my constituents are still slightly sceptical of devolution. They are worried that it is the first step towards the break-up of the United Kingdom and the creation of independent states, and that in Scotland it will lead to the domination of the central belt decision-making process over the peripheral regions of Scotland. Both those anxieties are wrong and will not be realised, but it is important to face up to them.
I have no quarrel with people's right to campaign democratically for an independent Scotland or an independent Wales, but they can justify that only if they win the hearts and minds of the people. One of the reasons that we had to secure a fair and democratic voting system in Scotland was to avoid the possibility of a minority of votes securing a majority and creating a crisis to break up the United Kingdom. I do not believe that there is or is likely to be a majority for Scottish independence, provided that devolution proceeds sensitively, and I certainly would not support it, respect it though I may. On the contrary, devolution is more likely, ironically, to loosen the ties but strengthen the Union by its diversity.
The problem of central belt dominance can be tackled. I am not being divisive, but many of us who do not live in the central belt felt that the decisions taken in Edinburgh were dominated mainly by civil servants, who focused on the central-belt perspective. They are now confronted with an elected Parliament that will make them recognise that decisions appropriate to

111WH
Edinburgh may not mean the same in Aberdeen or Galashiels. The Scottish Parliament has the time to debate such matters and, in a small way, we have seen some evidence of that even in the local government settlement, which has acknowledged that some peripheral and rural areas have not always been treated fairly. A modest step has now been taken to do something about that.
Devolution is beginning to reconnect people. Given the political process, that will take time. People are realising that there is more opportunity to debate and to make representations, and that issues that were not previously dealt with can now be considered, whether they be land reform or the restructuring of education and health in Scotland. I was encouraged to hear Labour Members speak so vigorously about the need for their party to take the matter forward. As the party in government, Labour is under an obligation to do that.
I suggest to the Government that there is a common cause to gain popular support behind the campaign for the English regions. I say to the Conservatives who worry about the English dimension that the way to resolve the problem is to hand power to the regions and to accept that there is a gap in English decision making. As the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) said, we must not clog up this place with unnecessary legislation that can be devolved to the regions. Such action will open up the House of Commons so that it can debate those issues that are of common interest to all the citizens of the United Kingdom, rather than it dwelling on the argument about who should vote on what. All right hon. and hon. Members are equal; we should debate everything on an equal footing and the appropriate decisions should be taken at the appropriate place.
Mr. Mike Hancock (in the Chair): I thank the hon. Member for Gordon for keeping within the time limit.
12.7 pm
Mr. Desmond Browne:I am grateful to have the opportunity to make an all-too-short contribution to this all-too-short debate. As one who supports devolution, I welcome a better opportunity to celebrate its achievements and to look forward with other hon. Members to the completion of the devolution project. Over time, I am convinced that it will lead to better governance for all United Kingdom citizens. A significant part of our legislative programme has been devoted to constitutional reform. We ought to remind ourselves that the delivery of the programme of modernisation was formulated in consultation with and in opposition to other political parties, but, most importantly, with the civic society in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. We have achieved much during the lifetime of this Parliament but, to paraphrase the late John Smith, as my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman) did, there is still unfinished business and we must complete it.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) said, it does no harm to remind ourselves of where we were prior to May 1997. Scotland is a consequence of the distortion of the Union under the centralising Governments of Margaret
112WH
Thatcher and the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major). Two matters became inseparable: the future of social democracy and the future of the constitution. When successive Conservative Governments began to move away from consultation with the people of Scotland, from permitting Scottish. distinctiveness and from an inclusive and coherent approach to social policy, the clamour for home rule became deafening. The Scottish Constitutional Convention responded to that noise, which was the basis of the White Paper that led eventually to the Scotland Act 1998. The success of devolution in Scotland and the benefits that it is delivering for the people of Scotland should be judged by those measures.
12.9 pm
Mr. Andrew George: I congratulate the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell). I agree that the time we have for the debate is all too short. The arguments for devolution and further decentralisation have been well made. Some issues of powers have been addressed. I agree with the proposal that further powers should be devolved. The relationship between regional assemblies and existing bureaucracies in the regions has also been discussed, but what should we do if the region that has been defined by central Government does not exist? That question needs to be addressed. It is a bull whose horns need to be yanked.
There is a common implication of derision, which was expressed by the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins) this morning, whenever reference is made to the idea of variable geometry—or geography— as the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) referred to it. He was concerned that other places should not hold back areas that want regional assemblies. Exactly the same applies in respect of those who want to consider how one identifies a region. If devolution is to be a success—and I believe that it needs to be a success— it has to be based on regions that people identify with and it has to have democratic legitimacy.
People should be concerned about the increasingly low turnouts at elections. The low turnouts at the European elections would surely be eclipsed by very low turnouts at regional assembly elections in areas where people have no sense of regional identity. People would stay home in their droves, if they did not identify with their region. Rather than destroying existing regions such as Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly, simply to create synthetic ones, we really do need to address that issue. There is a great opportunity, but we need to approach it with an open mind.
12.11 pm
Mr. Robert Syms: We have had a good debate and I congratulate the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) for bringing it to Westminster Hall. I also agree that it should be taken on the Floor of the House. When we debate first principles—and this is a very important first principle that concerns our constitution—all hon. Members should have the opportunity to participate. There have been some good speeches, and as I have disagreed with almost all of them, I shall be expressing the Conservative and Unionist view.

113WH
We have a problem in that we have a different size of nations within the United Kingdom. England represents 84 per cent. of the UK. The hon. Member for Great Grimsby was perfectly correct to say that England represents an elephant in relation to the other states. We established the Union so that the smaller countries could be represented in Parliament. The devolution settlement that we have had so far has changed that. There is a degree of unfinished business. The hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) has said in the House that there is an English dimension and there is a problem. That problem may grow if the balance of the House of Commons changes, and English representation changes.
I should correct the hon. Member for Great Grimsby. We are not committed to an English Parliament, although it is odd that people should glory in the Scottish Parliament, but say that the English should have something different. We are committed to English and Welsh votes within the House of Commons on issues that directly affect England and Wales and we have concerns about Scottish Members casting their vote on matters for which they have no responsibility in Scotland and changing the balance in the rest of the UK. When we vote on hunting later today, it will be interesting to see how many Scottish Members who cannot vote on that issue north of the border, will be voting to determine what happens in my constituency and other constituencies throughout southern England.
There is a problem with the way in which we proceeded with devolution, partly because it is a process and not an event. When we undertake constitutional change, we never quite get agreement for the boundaries of that change, but once it has been effected, people have to make it work. If we have a process, however, we are bound to have recurring argument. For example, the Welsh nationalists are dissatisfied with the settlement for Wales and are pushing for more powers. They look at the Scottish example and believe that they too should have more powers.
There is an endemic problem with the Scottish settlement in that the logic of devolution has not been followed through with the financial arrangements in that tomorrow the Treasury has to agree a limit for the Scottish Parliament. Indeed, there is a very limited amount of additional taxation, which the Scottish Parliament does not actually take. Those issues are likely to produce a degree of argument between Edinburgh and London and between Cardiff and London, and as a Unionist I am concerned that that could cause problems.
Mr. Jon Owen Jones: May I take the hon. Gentleman back to his example of Scottish Members voting on hunting? Will he contrast that problem with the position in the House of Lords, where people who are not elected by anyone, but who overwhelmingly represent London, as most of them live in London, should determine what the whole of the United Kingdom should do? Which is the greater wrong?
Mr. Syms: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. I would have preferred to leave the House of Lords as it
114WH
was before the Government started reforming it. However, there is an overwhelming logic in my personal view, although it is not necessarily my party's view, for an elected upper House. That point was made earlier in the debate and it is curious that the Government have backed away from the that.
I believe that we should continue to have two Chambers. I do not favour a unicameral system, as they have in New Zealand. Once we start to unpick the House of Lords, we have to look for means to give it some legitimate representation so that it can exercise its views.
Some hon. Members pre-empted my arguments about additional tiers. Additional tiers of elected politicians in local government, national Government and the European Parliament give people the choice of many more politicians to write to, but may not improve accountability. Furthermore, there will be the additional costs of salaries, back-up and offices. I notice in newspapers north of the border and, indeed, in Cardiff, arguments about the cost of headquarters, parliaments, buildings and so on.
The hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. George) raised the issue of boundaries. In England, the current boundaries were set up for Governmental Offices for the Regions. I do not believe, in most cases, that the first time people heard of them was when the Government introduced regional development agencies, which we are committed to abolish.
Most of us do not feel that we are in the right region. I am in the same region as the hon. Member for St. Ives. Most of my constituents look to Southampton and the M3. When we wanted to make representations about our council tax, we were asked to go to Bristol. However, it is quicker to get to London from Poole than it is to get to Bristol because the roads are not very good. The issue of boundaries needs to be addressed. I acknowledge that there may be more regional feeling in Yorkshire, but I think that throughout most of England there is not. Most of us look for an English dimension.
Nobody mentioned Barnett and the issue of funding. When we discuss such arrangements, everyone seems to think that a local regional assembly will have additional resources. Those resources will come from two possible sources, either from the taxpayer in London or from some locally raised taxation which will result in differential tax rates in England. There is always the assumption that there is a pot of gold somewhere and those pushing for some sort of assembly always seem to think that everyone will be better off because there will be more money. However, there is a finite amount of money within the United Kingdom, so inevitably there cannot be more money.
When I listened to the arguments relating to Wales and indeed Scotland, it was interesting to hear that most of those who spoke had shopping lists for their countries or, indeed, their constituencies. It will be difficult to meet people's aspirations. The resources within the United Kingdom will be the same, and adding another tier, which is expensive, will not result in more money.
Mr. Desmond Browne: I put the point to the hon. Gentleman that the recent Scottish experience suggests that within that finite pot of money within the existing

115WH
Barnett formula, devolution allows the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Executive to determine different priorities and that is important.
Mr. Syms: The hon. Member makes that point, but of course the Barnett formula does mean that public spending north of the border is one fifth higher than throughout most of the United Kingdom. Some of those that understand these matters better than I, say that over a 10-year period that will unscramble and matters will change with population changes, but the Scottish Parliament can, of course, determine its own resources.
There is a danger that devolution could top-slice local government too, and I understand that there has been some tension between local government and the Scottish Parliament. Underlying this constitutional argument is the keen issue of how resources are divided in the UK. The hon. Member for Great Grimsby made an enjoyable speech, but did not specify how additional resources would be allocated to Yorkshire or the north—whether they would be raised from areas without devolution, or indeed whether there would be a higher tax rate. If he had to tell his constituents that if they had devolution, they would pay additional taxes I wonder how popular it would be.
I have covered quick points concerning boundaries and resources. I do not believe that there is an appetite for regionalism. I know that there is a legitimate English dimension.
Mr. Mike Hancock (in the Chair): Before I call the Minister I should say that my only disappointment in that speech was to hear that people in Poole did not look straight to Portsmouth rather than Southampton.
12.20pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Beverley Hughes): I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) secured this debate. It has been both enjoyable and interesting, and I welcome the opportunity to set out how much this is a key issue for the Government. As hon. Members have said, we need a wider debate, not just in the House, but in the country. I feel almost sorry for the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Syms). Not only does his party oppose regional development agencies, regional government offices, and any regionally focused policy, it has demonstrated today that it is not interested in being part of the debate, either in terms of the principle of devolution, or in terms of extending devolution to the English regions. I am, however, pleased to have the support of my hon. Friends and other hon. Members in this Chamber, for the principle of devolution and how we extend it to the English regions. Although I may not have time to acknowledge the contribution of every hon. Member, let me acknowledge the importance of the debate and thank hon. Members for their support.
It is important that we are aware of the context of the debate. We are talking about devolution, albeit that my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby understandably wants to focus on the English regions. We came to office after a long period in which our constitution had lain in a state of abject stagnation. We set out in our manifesto the many changes that we
116WH
wanted to bring about—changes that we passionately believe in—and that were essential for the democratic health of our country. It is not simply a matter of principle.
We had an over-centralised Government, a near national crisis in confidence in our national parliament, excessive secrecy and a lack of principal protection for human rights. That was the reason for change. We believe that our institutions must reflect our values and not circumscribe them. Our agenda for change was very much as hon. Members have identified it: as well as revitalising and modernising the constitution to ensure that it reflects the society we serve, giving people opportunities to become engaged in the process of governmental decision making at every level.
The intervention by the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) showed what difficulty the Tories have with that concept when he talked about the governed and the governing, as if there were a them and an us. We do not have that problem. We want to engage people in the process of decision making that affects them. However, hon. Members are right to say that there is no blueprint for change. We have sought solutions that reflect the context of each area, its legitimate needs and the popular mandate. We have tried to be flexible and pragmatic in our response. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins) rightly said, that is important.
For good reason, our approach to decentralisation and devolution has been different for different parts of the UK, reflecting the different circumstances and histories of Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and, indeed, London. I shall not dwell on some of the points raised about Scotland and Wales—we did not have much of a debate about Northern Ireland—except to say that what is evolving in those areas demonstrates many of the points that hon. Members have raised today about how devolution can begin to engage local people and give them a sense of ownership in respect of the decisions that affect them and the freedom to take different courses that reflect the different circumstances and needs of their areas.
As my hon. Friends have said, we must not and have not ignored the English dimension. We have begun the process of decentralisation and devolution in England. We have to be realistic about the speed—the previous Administration spent 20 years running down the regional policy. It is taking some time to reverse that but that does not indicate a lack of commitment.
It is germane, although it was not raised in the debate, that in this Parliament we have also spent a great deal of time supporting, strengthening and modernising local government, enabling it to develop strong local strategic partnerships. Whatever happens in terms of devolution to a regional level, the agencies that will have to deliver what directly elected regional bodies think is necessary, will have to operate at local level.
The issue of partnership between regional structures, whatever they may be, and locally based organisations particularly in local authorities, is also important. We have embarked on a radical process of change. The RDAs and the changes in London show how we can establish the case for further change at regional level. This is far from the end of the story. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman) called

117WH
it unfinished business. We have made an important commitment in our manifesto and that has been reiterated twice by my rt. hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister, including yesterday.
We need to understand and build on what the regions themselves need and want rather than imposing something from Whitehall. The issue of self-determination, in terms of form and so on, is obviously intrinsic to the debate. Several Members raised issues that I would like to discuss.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central that the crucial issues are not history or mystique, but practicality, resources, the purpose of a directly elected regional government and how we can define those broader ends as well as seeing directly elected regional government as an essential means to those ends.
My hon. Friend also asked me about local government determination. It is more a matter of reorganisation and it is too early to say what that might mean in practice. I can tell him, however, that there is no presumption that, if there is to be any local government restructuring, it would have to come before the introduction of regional government. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister made that clear yesterday and I am happy to reiterate the point about no presumption.
A number of hon. Members have mentioned the manifesto and the Labour party's position. My hon. Friends will know that in the Labour party's policy forum document "Building a Future for All", we have said again that we intend to move towards directly elected regional government, where and when there is clear demand for it. We have made a commitment to publishing a Green Paper or a White Paper on regional governance. My hon. Friends will understand that I cannot pre-empt what will be in our manifesto, but they can be clear that the Labour party wants to take the matter forward.
In conclusion, let me restate the Government's commitment to constitutional reform and modernisation. As well as stating Government policy, let me make three points. There are a number of key issues, including size, structure and the level of powers, but in promoting wider debate we need to concentrate on three issues: the economic case for directly elected regional government, accountability and the democratic case and the popular case. We need a clear popular mandate to take this forward, but if we can focus on the economic, democratic and popular aspects of the debate, we will do so in a productive way.

Radioactive Discharges (River Tamar)
12.30pm
Mr. Colin Breed: I should like to say how much I support Her Majesty's dockyard at Devonport, Devonport Management Ltd—which runs the dockyard—and the naval establishment as a whole, which is not only extremely valuable to the economy of the area, but a strategic part of the defence of the country.
I also welcome HMS Raleigh, the naval training establishment in Torpoint in my constituency, and the recent transfer of the submarine school to Raleigh, skilfully organised by Commander Peter Payne-Hanlon, to make the establishment the Navy's premier training centre. But —and it is a very big but—the Ministry of Defence, the Navy and DML do not own the River Tamar, which is in an area of outstanding natural beauty. There are a number of sites of special scientific interest. It is a working river used by commercial interests, including passenger ferries, and by pleasure and leisure craft. The Navy, the MOD and DML share that river, but of course in their particular position they share a greater responsibility to all those who use the river and live close to the river and the dockyard.
Recently licences have been issued, initially to the MOD in 1968 and then to DML in 1987 and again in 1997, to allow them to discharge radioactive liquid into the River Tamar. Those discharges have obviously been carefully considered and properly controlled. At present, the Environment Agency is considering a renewal of that licence, and changes to some of its conditions. In recent times there has been a greater public concern about the whole issue of radioactivity and its effects on health. Perhaps one of the only certainties about radioactivity and health is uncertainty. As we learn more and more about the effects of radioactivity, we adjust our standards and seek to install protection.
Part of that analysis has to be an understanding of the risks. Not unnaturally, the public as a whole are not fully aware of all the scientific work that is undertaken. However, it has to be taken into account that the public support for the dockyard and the Navy cannot be taken for granted. The public wish to become more involved, and to understand more of what is involved in discharging radioactive liquid into the River Tamar.
The present licence, which is currently being considered, concerns two particular substances. DML proposes to increase the amounts of tritium discharged into the river by nearly 800 per cent. Tritium is hazardous in that, being a weaker form of radiation, it does not shoot through human cells like bullets. However, it is able to lodge in the cell and cause mutation. In effect, its weakness is its strength. Because of its weakness it can be widely dispersed around the body, giving what is termed a whole-body dose. In this way it passes through the food chain, beginning with the sea life that ingests it with the water, and can then be discharged. Tritium has a so-called half-life of a little over 12 years. It has plenty of opportunity, once expelled from the body, to re-circulate eventually into local watercourses.

119WH
DML also plans to decrease the amount of cobalt 60 discharged into the river. Cobalt 60 is known to be a hazardous waste, and it is therefore a great advantage that we are seeing a reduction in that waste disposal. It is a powerful source of gamma rays. It kills cells. Gamma particles penetrate deep into the body and are undoubtedly hazardous. Long-term effects can bring about genetic changes and cause malfunction in offspring.
Importantly, it seems that in this case not much thought has been given to the fact that the River Tamar is a tidal estuary. Those who know that river will be aware that when the tide goes out, it exposes quite a lot of mud banks. The particles that settle down into that mud are then, when the mud dries out, capable of being blown by the wind into the air that we breathe and the food that we eat, blowing around the area immediately adjacent to the River Tamar. That area is fairly heavily populated now: 260,000 people live in Plymouth and in my constituency there are two large towns, Saltash and Torpoint, probably with a further 30,000 people. We are talking about almost 300,000 people living in reasonably close proximity.
We do not know precisely the health effects of exposure to what is known as organically bound tritium, or the details of the metabolism of OBT. Nor do we know the consequences of radiation-induced genomic instability, but it seems unlikely that it would play no part whatever in the processes that can lead to cancer. This ignorance should lead to caution about exposing any populations to ionising radiation.
Particularly worrying is the risk of permanently polluting the human gene pool. As far as tritium is concerned, it is reasonable to question whether people are being exposed to levels that could harm them. Levels of exposure to tritium currently deemed safe may, in the not too distant future, be proved to be harmful to those exposed, and to many future generations.
It is difficult not to sound alarmist on this, because DML has explained to me, and to many others that have written to it or approached it, that it has to comply with very stringent standards in respect of any liquid, and these are properly monitored by the Environment Agency. It is a little disturbing that such licences as are granted do not have any time limits. There is no limit to the length of time that DML may use its licence, although of course the Environment Agency will monitor the situation and could insist on changes. It may be time for any licences that are now granted to be subject to at least a time limit, giving standard reviews of the situation.
Time limits would be even more appropriate, given the slow creep and build-up of nuclear activity and nuclear waste in the same area. It has been suggested that Devonport may well be where decommissioned nuclear submarines will be stored for some considerable time, and that may well be the most appropriate way of storing those decommissioned units. That would increase the possibility of nuclear and radioactive discharges.
A little way along the river, a development known as RAFT—the Remote Ammunitioning Facility Tamar—is under way. I support that and firmly believe that RAFT will significantly improve the dockyard's safety and operation. Although some people are trying to
120WH
prevent that development, I believe that it is appropriate. I see the development site from my property, so hon. Members can rest assured that I would be most concerned about any safety problems.
I want to issue a caution in respect of the way in which the RAFT development obtained permission and licensing. It was a highly controversial development and permission was given after considerable public consultation and work by the dockyard and DML. Conditions were imposed by the Environment Agency, which of course is the monitoring agency for the entire exercise. Two important conditions were that a consultation exercise involving local fishermen should be carried out and that the discharge site, where sediments would be dumped, should be properly monitored. Neither was complied with when work commenced.
I have received a letter from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, stating that the Ministry of Defence had reacted quickly to offer a meeting with fishermen as soon as their concerns were raised, but that the offer was declined. The fishermen rightly had expected a consultation before the work commenced, not afterwards. Similarly, the monitoring of the dumping site was set up after work had commenced.
Another aspect of RAFT is causing environmental and safety concerns. The history of the site for that extension to the dockyard includes the presence of second world war ordnance. That was known and surveys were undertaken, but as development has proceeded, new ordnance has been discovered. A letter from the Ministry of Defence states:
This clearance operation has been rigorous and thorough—
which is good—
and is ongoing.
Perhaps we are to take from that statement the message that ordnance will be disposed of only as and when it is found during development. The items that are involved include old depth charges and other ordnance that must be disposed of by the naval bomb disposal team.
Hon. Members can imagine that, in the light of all the public concerns, there is considerable consternation. Will the Environment Agency monitor the discharges properly? Can the discharges be considered for removal from the site? Is it necessary in this day and age to discharge them into the river? Is it a matter of cost that they cannot be dealt with elsewhere? Is it right for the long-term storage of decommissioned nuclear submarines not to be taken into account in relation to the other matters, which amount to a concentration of radioactive material in an area of relatively high population?
As I said at the start of the debate, I and many people in the south-east Cornwall and Plymouth area are, and probably always will be, supportive of the dockyard and its activities. It has grown up alongside them over hundreds of years. Many of us who have been there for some time actively support the dockyard and want to help it. However, it is right that it takes account of public concern. Public consultation means informed consent as to what goes on.
I hope that the MOD, DML and the Environment Agency will become more proactive in seeking public consultation by providing the information that people

121WH
need to understand the risk assessments and to feel comfortable about what is happening. The Environment Agency has the strength of its monitoring and the regulations in place to ensure that when conditions are imposed, they are complied with, so that we see a safe dockyard and safety for local residents; demonstrated by the scientific community, but also understood by local people so that they feel comfortable. If that is not the case, I fear that some of the existing good will and support for the dockyard will begin to erode. That would be disastrous for south-east Cornwall, for Plymouth and for the whole nation.
12.46 pm
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr. John Spellar): I congratulate the hon. Member for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Breed) on securing the debate and on the way in which he has raised the understandable and legitimate concerns of people in the south-west regarding nuclear discharges into the River Tamar. I particularly welcome his words on the importance of the dockyards to the area.
As everyone knows—and as the hon. Gentleman emphasised—the area around the Tamar is one of great natural beauty. Plymouth sound and its associated estuaries are an important area of international marine conservation, supporting nationally important numbers of wintering and passage wildfowl. We understand local concerns for the safety of that environment and for the health and well-being of the local population, as well as for the tens of thousands of visitors who flock to the south-west each year for the pleasure of relaxing on the beaches and taking part in other outdoor activities. Tourism contributes significantly to the local economy, so I recognise the importance of balancing the industrial demands of the region with the need to conserve the innate qualities of the area. We are fortunate in the United Kingdom to have highly effective legislation to help to protect the environment for future generations.
As the hon. Gentleman recognises, the economy of Plymouth and the surrounding area, including his constituency, benefits greatly from the Royal Navy's presence at Devonport and the ship and submarine refit and repair work undertaken there. For over 300 years, the royal dockyard at Devonport has provided constant and effective support to the Royal Navy. Nuclear submarines, of course, have an important role in today's Navy. Their ability to remain submerged and operate independently from land bases or supply ships for long periods is fundamental to the Navy's protection and deterrent operations.
Devonport not only supports the submarines of the Royal Navy in operation and maintenance, but provides a home for four decommissioned nuclear-powered submarines that have reached the end of their operational service. As hon. Members will be aware, the present Government have made proposals for moving away from the policy of storage afloat for the redundant submarines. We are therefore examining the potential for dismantling them and storing them on land—the hon. Gentleman drew attention to that.
I appreciate that aspect was only a small part of the issue raised by the hon. Gentleman, but I know that land storage of the submarines is a matter of great concern
122WH
and interest in Plymouth. The debate gives me the opportunity to make it clear that no proposals have been made to me or to any of my ministerial colleagues suggesting that we should break up and store decommissioned nuclear submarines at Devonport, or at any other specific site. We have continually stressed that detailed investigations of the most suitable sites for the cut-out and land storage will be undertaken in the next stage of the study, which is now under way. No specific sites have been recommended.
I suppose that it is understandable that we should hear speculation from several of the nuclear "pundits" on what they think is the most likely site. However, let me make it clear again that no decisions on the site have been taken. It is our consultations with the public and the proposals that we receive that will influence any decision.
I now return to the main part of the hon. Gentleman's speech. In the early 1970s, a submarine refitting complex was built at Devonport specifically for the maintenance, refitting and refuelling of our nuclear-powered submarines. The Ministry of Defence remains committed to the refitting of nuclear submarines at Devonport, as was underlined in our strategic defence review, which also supported the continued use of nuclear submarines. Submarine refitting will provide a steady long-term work load in the area, worth more than £1 billion over the next 10 years. As the only dockyard that will refit the Royal Navy's substantially larger Vanguard class submarines, a major building and civil engineering project is under way to provide a new Vanguard facility to the latest seismic standards.
It is because of that important Vanguard work that Devonport Management Ltd, the owner and nuclear site licensee of Devonport dockyard, submitted an application to the Environment Agency last May to vary the levels of radioactive discharges from the dockyard site. The disposal of radioactive waste and effluent is, quite properly, under the regulatory control of the Environment Agency. The agency is the enforcing authority that grants disposal authorisations under the Radioactive Substances Act 1993. Nothing that I say here is intended to prejudice the Environment Agency's independent review of the issues, although I and my colleagues in the Department are wholly convinced of the benefits of continuing to develop the arrangements at Devonport.
No high-level radioactive waste is produced from the nuclear activities of the dockyard owners. When a submarine is refuelled, it is the responsibility of my Department to manage the removal of the spent nuclear fuel from the dockyard. The highly radioactive material is transported for long-term storage at the Sellafield site in Cumbria, which is run by British Nuclear Fuels Ltd. Intermediate-level waste at Devonport is stored safely and securely in a purpose-built waste store to allow radioactivity levels to decay to low levels. All low-level radioactive waste, in solid form, is eventually consigned for disposal to Drigg, which is also in Cumbria. Very low-level solid waste, such as protective clothing that is only slightly contaminated, is suitable for disposal with non-radioactive waste to licensed landfill sites. Similar procedures apply to clothing used in the medical sector.
Liquid radioactive waste generated at the dockyard may, depending on its origin and level of activity, be discharged to the dockyard sewers or into the Tamar

123WH
estuary. I would like to stress, however, that before waste is discharged into the estuary it is treated in a specialised effluent treatment plant to remove contaminants. It is that waste water that is then discharged into the river. When planning nuclear work, DML conducts reviews to assess how much waste will be generated, and then takes every possible step to minimise that waste. In practice, DML's discharges and disposals are generally well below authorised limits.
The Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science undertakes periodic monitoring in the Tamar estuary on behalf of the Food Standards Agency. In addition to that annual monitoring, DML carries out quarterly surveys. Each survey takes two days. In addition, the Defence Radiological Protection Service carries out a more extensive annual survey. The monitoring shows that the impact on the local marine environment of radioactive work in the dockyard is so low that it is below the limits of detection.
DML's current application seeks approval to vary the levels of radioactive waste that the company is currently authorised to discharge from the dockyard site. The application covers not only liquid discharges but the removal of solid waste from the site and any release into the air. We are debating one aspect of that today—the liquid discharges into the Tamar. Although the radiation dose from those discharges to members of the public will be less than four hundredths of that typically received from naturally occurring radiation sources, it is nevertheless important that the application should be rigorously scrutinised, and rightly so. As the hon. Gentleman rightly stressed, it is also important that local people should be consulted about the proposed changes. The consultation process is the responsibility of the Environment Agency.
I understand that the Environment Agency is currently preparing a consultation document. When it is ready, the agency will hold formal three-month consultation period. That is likely to commence before spring this year. The consultation will be widely advertised, and the documents will be made available for examination at the Environment Agency public register in Exminster, the public register at Plymouth city council and at various libraries within 25 km of Devonport dockyard. The consultation documents will also be sent to town and parish councils in that area.
Soon after the consultation process commences, the Environment Agency proposes to hold a public meeting in Plymouth. Issues that have been raised will be considered as part of the formal consultation process. I understand that the date, time and venue of the public meeting will also be widely advertised.
The Ministry of Defence will be assisting in that process. Although there is a legal question as to whether the Environment Agency is required to consider whether defence nuclear programmes giving rise to radioactive discharges are justified, successive Governments have taken the view that it is a matter for Ministers, in consultation with the House. My Department will co-operate fully with the Environment Agency.
124WH
The Environment Agency will reach a decision only after all the issues raised have been considered. The reasoning behind its decision will be set out in a decision document to be issued when the decision is taken. That document will also record the major issues raised in the consultation process, and the Environment Agency's response and views on those issues.
Approval of DML's application is necessary to enable Vanguard class nuclear submarines to be refuelled and refitted at Devonport dockyard. The first of those refits, on HMS Vanguard, is due to start in 2002, and the only facilities in the United Kingdom that can undertake that work are at Devonport. Vanguard submarines deploy Trident missiles, and the refitting of the submarines is essential to the maintenance of our independent strategic nuclear deterrent. The work can therefore be done only at Devonport.
I have said that DML's application is linked to Vanguard class submarine refitting and refuelling activities. However, I should like to explain why it is necessary to change the disposal levels. Nuclear submarines produce radioactive waste during normal operations. The water from the reactor plant in older classes of submarines has to be discharged in operation. Occasionally, that is done at sea, where the extremely low levels of radiation can be dispersed in the vastness of the oceans, or to a dedicated shore facility when the boat is berthed alongside, for example at Devonport. In both cases, these discharges are only ever made under strictly controlled conditions and after the water has been treated.
The reactor plants in Vanguard class submarines are of a new design. The coolant water, which in older classes of submarines requires to be discharged, is now retained on board. That enables it to be reused in the reactor cooling system, and effectively eliminates the requirement for discharging at sea. Because of that recycling process, there is an increase in the concentration of some radioactive contaminants in the water, such as tritium, which is a radioactive form of hydrogen. That has to be dealt with during the refitting process.
The nuclear industry is continually seeking to improve the processes for removing radionuclides from the waste stream, through the development of better extraction processes, but there is no practical method of separating out liquid tritium. However, the radiation exposure to the general public from tritium discharges at Devonport will be virtually indistinguishable from natural background radiation levels. That is the case even in those areas of the country that, unlike the south-west, have particularly low natural background levels. To illustrate that point, the quantities of tritium involved in the new discharge application are similar to those used commercially to provide illumination for compasses and dials, which the Radioactive Substances Act 1993 allows to be disposed of in local authority waste.
The hon. Gentleman also mentioned the reduction in the most radiologically significant constituent of the liquid waste stream, cobalt 60. Some cobalt 60 can now be extracted and dealt with as solid waste.

NHS Plymouth Derriford Hospital
1 pm
Mrs. Linda Gilroy: Plymouth Derriford hospital is the largest provider of tertiary health services for the Devon and Cornwall peninsula, which has a population of 1.6 million. It also provides the full range of district general hospital services for its local population, some 430,000 people in Plymouth, South Hams and west Devon and east Cornwall. The south and west region has two principal tertiary centres at Bristol and Plymouth. The Bristol trusts are a long way from the peninsula, particularly Cornwall and Plymouth. In the past four years, Plymouth Derriford hospital has received extra investment in areas that desperately needed it after 18 years of Conservative underinvestment in our health services. It received nearly £2.5 million of extra capital and revenue funding for breast cancer treatment. A further £3.5 million has been invested in a new unit for other cancer services, and we have now been designated a regional cancer centre. An extra £12 million of revenue and capital funding has been made available to cardiac care. To modernise the accident and emergency department, Derriford has been allocated £750,000. Plymouth is to receive a substantial amount of extra money, as well as money to train many of the 1,000 extra doctors that are required nationwide. We are excited that many of those doctors will be trained in Plymouth, following the founding of the new peninsula medical school.
In the lead-up to the publication of the NHS 10-year plan, I carried out a local survey in my constituency to find out how my constituents felt that the extra investment could best be used to restore and build the NHS. It will not surprise the Minister that Plymouth people recognise that the urgent need to recruit new staff is basic to improving the quality and efficiency of the service. Last summer, I spent an afternoon on the medical assessment unit in Derriford. I shadowed Sister Louise, who was in charge. In taking an interest in some aspect of admissions, I only had to blink to find myself running to keep up with her as she attended to the next pressing priority competing for her attention. At the end of the afternoon I had a good idea of just how hard-pressed health staff can be.
I also visited the pathology laboratories, and was impressed by the dedication of the staff dealing with things that are immensely important to hospital patients and the community. I was shocked by how little some of them were paid, and was not surprised to learn that there was 100 per cent. turnover in the lower grades in some sections. Last April, I presented a petition to the House calling on the Government to recognise the problems of the pathology service across Devon, especially in terms of recruitment and retention. I am delighted with the announcement made 12 days ago that all support staff not covered by the pay review bodies are to receive an above-inflation settlement of 3.7 per cent., with the laboratory staff receiving between 3 and 13 per cent. on top of that.
A further finding of my survey was that two out of three people did not know of the Conservatives' plans to introduce insurance or charges for many operations, including hip and knee replacements and cataract operations. We know that that could result in swingeing payments for the over-50s, who could be forced to take
126WH
out insurance equivalent to paying £70 or more a week on their tax, or pay the cost of the operations—which ranges from £1,000 to £5,000—themselves. The Minister will not be surprised to know that, on finding out this information, the sensible people of Plymouth were opposed to those measures.
We are delighted to have received nearly £33 million more this year from the Government for the South and West Devon health authority, and another £33.5 million for 2001. The two of her health authorities that look to Derriford to provide their tertiary and most of their secondary care services have received similarly significant increases. That money will help us to build on the significant extra sums that we have received since 1997. The 30 per cent. real-terms increase—50 per cent. in cash—announced by the Chancellor last year, to be released over the next few years, is hugely welcome.
Before I talk about the outstanding challenges that we face at Derriford, I place on the record my thanks and those of my constituents for the extra investment coming through the health action zone, which is doing good work to tackle health inequalities in the city. Much of the pressure on Derriford's services results from the gap between rich and poor areas of our city. I am sure that the Minister will recollect that the legacy of my Conservative predecessor was the poorest ward in England. She is aware of the devastating health problems that poverty brings. The inner-city ward of St. Peter in my constituency has a premature mortality rate three times that of the leafy suburbs of Plymstock Dunstone. Cancer mortality is more than twice as high for those under 75 in the St. Peter ward as it is in the Plymstock ward; emergency admissions to hospital are two thirds greater.
The action zone is working with the new deal for communities project, "Devonport People's Dreams". On Monday, I joined 100 people working on that project to hear them finalise their dream of investing £30 million in their community. Doing something about those health problems at source is high on their agenda.
Against that background of poverty and pressures, I shall describe in more detail the special circumstances and unique challenges faced by Plymouth Derriford hospital trust, which are well documented. It has the same problems that hospitals face throughout the country. Waiting list targets, winter pressures, recruitment and retention of staff and the cleanliness of wards and theatres have all been the subject of local and national press attention. As a result of those problems, there have been distressing cases of inadequate patient care and attention. Some have hit the press; some have not.
Last year, the chief executive resigned in circumstances that placed serious question marks over waiting list management and the accuracy of statistical records. Derriford's management costs are among the lowest in the country. That could be something to be proud of, but in the context of the challenges that I am outlining, I think that we have probably paid a high price for some of the consequences of those low costs.
Constituents have raised concerns about all those issues, as they no doubt do with the Minister and Members the length and breadth of the country. I am pleased that, with fresh management, we are seeing new approaches. We have some extremely good news stories

127WH
to tell about staff at Derriford providing high-quality and some exceptional health care. It would be invidious to single out only one or two staff for praise, which is all that this short debate would permit. Perhaps the best way of reflecting the situation is to refer back to my survey, in which 75 per cent. of people said that they were satisfied or very satisfied with the health service.
I have listed the challenges at greater length than the achievements, because they are an important backdrop to the case that I want to put before the Minister. Plymouth's Derriford hospital is the largest non-teaching hospital in Europe, so it does not receive the extra resources allocated to teaching hospitals. I mentioned the successful bid for the new peninsula medical school. It will bring some £30 million a year to the local economy and improve the chances of local young people to become doctors. In Plymouth, Devon and Cornwall we have one of the lowest rates of young people entering the profession. We also have great hopes that the school will improve equity of access to a range of specialist services. People in the peninsula have the poorest rates of access to life-saving tertiary procedures in the region and substantially lower rates than the national average.
The school alone, however, will not solve the problems. It may even create extra pressures in some respects. There is simply insufficient capacity to provide, let alone improve, services across primary, secondary and tertiary care to meet the expectations of the national health service plan. The successful implementation of the plan and our modernisation agenda will require extra capacity in the form of extra beds, theatres and other facilities.
Since January 2000, bed occupancy at Derriford has been running at an average of 94 per cent., compared with an average of 84 per cent. nationally. It is running well over capacity, which is one reason why it is having great difficulty limiting waiting times. There is no prospect of ensuring that the people of Plymouth, Devon and Cornwall receive the same treatment and are subject to the same waiting times—let alone having equity of access to tertiary services—as people in other parts of England, unless that problem is addressed. It is only because of the exceptional dedication of medical and support staff that we have been able to hold the line on meeting winter pressures.
As the Minister knows, we have problems meeting the waiting list targets. That was recognized by the winter and emergency services team when it visited toward the end of last year. I know that my hon. Friend observed those problems when she visited Plymouth a few months ago. In particular, WEST praised the excellent approach of Derriford's bed management team, the flexibility of surgeons in achieving waiting list targets, and developments in primary care. The trust has worked hard with local primary care groups and social services to ensure that patients can return home with adequate support as soon as they are fit enough.
It was a huge blow to the hospital's morale to be named among the seven hospitals in the country that were failing on waiting lists. Nevertheless, the national patient access team, which was tasked to support Derriford in addressing such issues, has been welcomed. A supportive relationship soon developed with the hospital, in order to meet the challenges faced. The team
128WH
probably recognised that an average of 94 per cent. bed occupancy, to which I referred earlier, was a challenging background.
People living in the South and West Devon health authority area have more than 15 per cent. worse access to vital procedures such as cardiac valve operations, coronary bypasses, burns services, kidney transplants and bone marrow grafts. My hon. Friend will have noticed that I mentioned kidney transplants. Despite the fact that the people of Plymouth gave huge support to Derriford's kidney unit when it was threatened with closure last year, access to kidney transplants is comparatively poor. I am pleased that we managed to retain the kidney unit, and that I and my hon. Friends the Members for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson) and for Falmouth and Camborne (Ms Atherton), as well as my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), were able to lend our not inconsiderable weight to that successful campaign. However, I am concerned that access to renal transplants remains poorer than elsewhere.
The Plymouth area has 300 fewer beds for its population than the national average, and Derriford has fewer consultants, compared with national averages, in key areas. I am concerned that the triple challenge of managing winter pressures, achieving waiting list targets, and fulfilling the role of a district general hospital as well as a tertiary service regional resource, which gives equitable access to acute services, cannot be met for ever with such a strained infrastructure. Sooner or later, something more will have to give. No scope exists for achieving targets on all fronts when strains and challenges, across almost every area of activity, are so evident. We need a significant and strategic investment in the physical infrastructure of our service, to match the welcome increase in medical staff numbers and pay and conditions.
I do not need to quote more figures to demonstrate to the Minister the specific challenges faced in Plymouth. I know that she shares my real concern about the situation, and a desire to do something about it. Plymouth Hospitals NHS trust, in conjunction with the community services trust, is bidding for one of the major hospital developments announced by the Secretary of State in the NHS plan. The strategic outline case for a new planned care centre envisages allowing acute and specialist care to be totally redesigned around the patient at Derriford. For patients, that would bring reduced lengths of stay away from home, a need for fewer visits, reduced cancellations and shorter waiting times.
I appreciate that the Minister cannot announce further investment of that type in the context of this debate, but I hope that she will recognise the exceptional challenges that the hospital faces. I welcome the amount that has already been done, but there is so much further to go.
Improvement will not happen overnight. The investment made so far and still to come on stream is absolutely vital. I wish that it could have flowed faster, but the Minister and I know that, in 1997, a shocking 43p in every pound of taxpayers' money was spent on the cost of rising debt and unemployment. The comparable figure today is only 17p. We can both look our constituents in the eye and tell them that we can build on what we started year on year—as long as we

129WH
avoid returning to the boom-and-bust economy, which resulted in so much underinvestment in our vital public services from the beginning and almost wrecked them in the longer term.
Labour believes in the national health service as a public service in a way that the Conservatives do not. Thanks to the Chancellor's prudent management of the economy, we can put problems right over the medium term through the NHS 10-year plan.
The trust faces significant organisational and clinical challenges. I look forward to hearing the Minister's views on how the Government can help Derriford trust to play its full role in achieving a modern health service for the people of Plymouth, Devon and Cornwall. I am confident that Derriford's board, management and staff will rise to the challenge of providing a service that compares with the best available on a far greater range of its activities than it does, or can, at present. The Minister's recognition of Derriford's special needs and challenges will be appreciated at this crossroads in the history of health care in our city.
Mr. Mike Hancock (in the Chair): I thank the hon. Lady for that well-presented case.
1.16 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Ms Gisela Stuart): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mrs. Gilroy) on her success in securing the debate and I acknowledge her continuing support for and active engagement in the health community. I recognise the presence of my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson) who, as Government Whip, is by convention silent in the Chambers of this House. I can assure his constituents that he is not silent when it comes to representing their needs before Ministers.
Plymouth Hospitals NHS trust provides both secondary and tertiary health services to the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton; as such, it plays an extremely important part in their lives. The presence of my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Cambourne (Ms Atherton) demonstrates that the trust is important not just for the city of Plymouth, but much more widely.
The trust has had its problems over the past year, but they must be placed in context. It is important to recognise the steady work being done locally to improve the situation. The trust and its staff have shown tremendous commitment and Government investment has also helped. The context of the development of the Government's vision for the NHS in the NHS plan should be recognised. Many improvements have taken place in many spheres of the trust since Labour came to office. Expenditure, activity, staff numbers and beds have all increased in the past three years and further significant service developments started in that period.
Expenditure since Labour came to office has increased by a third from just over £123 million in 1996–97 to nearly £165 million last year. That must be set against an extraordinary increase in the trust's activity—by 1999–2000 an increase of 8.2 per cent. since 1996–97, which amounts to almost 108,000 finished
130WH
consultant episodes. The number of nurses employed at the trust since 1996–97 has increased by 386—a rise of nearly 23 per cent. This year alone has seen an extra 165 nurses and, over the past three years, more than 40 consultants—new posts, not replacements for clinicians who had left—have joined the trust.
Despite those impressive increases in medical and nursing staff, there are difficulties in Plymouth, as in other parts of the country. The major constraint on the NHS is no longer a shortage of money, but of staff. Investment in medical and nursing education and training during the 18 years of Conservative power was insufficient to meet the current needs of the modern NHS and to deliver the changes necessary in the NHS plan. The trust has a current nursing vacancy rate of 5.7 per cent., which compares favourably with that of other trusts. The success of the trust in recruiting and retaining staff is due to a number of factors: long-term recruitment initiatives, including the hiring of 91 nurses from the Philippines; the introduction of annualised hours and other flexible working arrangements and, importantly, help with child care through vouchers or the hospital nursery, which the trust is currently seeking to expand; and greatly enhanced training and development opportunities to facilitate retention.
I take the opportunity to thank everyone working in the NHS in Plymouth for their tremendous work, day in, day out. The doctors, nurses, ambulance workers, scientists, clerical and maintenance workers, laboratory staff and others who work in Plymouth have been pushed to the limit, as I saw on my visit there. It is difficult to judge a hospital only on the information received, but I saw on my visit there that the trust's staff were completely committed. We do not want them to be pushed to the limits in the long term; it is to their credit that they are so committed, but long-term developments must ease the situation.
There have been major service developments in recent years; the NHS plan recognises that merely doing more of what has always been done is not a long-term solution. The most significant of those service developments was the opening in November 1997 of the new three-theatre cardiac surgery unit to provide heart surgery in the peninsula for the first time. Patients no longer have to travel to London, Oxford or Bristol for treatment. Since its opening the unit has already expanded, with the recruitment of two additional cardiothoracic surgeons. In March this year, the trust intends to open a second cardiac catheterisation laboratory, to provide additional diagnostic procedures and interventions. That is a real benefit to all who live in and around Plymouth.
In October 1999, the trust opened a new 15-bed unit to fast track the assessment of emergency surgical admissions. In May last year, we announced a £150 million extra investment specifically for critical care—the biggest ever investment in critical care in the history of the NHS. South and West Devon health authority received more than £1.7 million, leading to an increase of 20 per cent. in the number of critical care beds at the trust.
We have already invested £115 million to modernise every accident and emergency department in England that needs it. From the funding provided by the Government, the people of Plymouth will have the benefit of a newly refurbished A & E department; at a

131WH
cost of nearly £800,000, it will double the number of bays in the resuscitation room and provide a 12-bed observation unit. The Government are committed to ending waiting times for cancer surgery, thereby helping thousands of women waiting for breast cancer treatment, for example. As part of that commitment, in March the trust will open a new £1.46 million outpatient breast care unit and a 15-bed surgical ward for female patients.
A development that is less obvious to the patient is the substantial investment of £1 million a year for seven years to develop the trust's new patient information management system. That initiative, with the other significant investment in IT, will mean that when patients receive care the professionals treating them will be working on the best quality knowledge about their condition and available treatments. They should expect to be given up-to-date information from professionals about their condition, the treatment they are receiving and other sources of advice.
When test results are returned to the referring doctor, patients should expect to hear the results quickly. That is a step change for NHS patients from which people in Plymouth and the surrounding areas will benefit.
There have been comments in the press recently about problems in the orthopaedic and gastroenterology specialties. This year, the trust intends to appoint an additional two orthopaedic consultants and to install a laminar air flow in the orthopaedic operating theatre. In gastroenterology, the trust intends to appoint an additional consultant and nurse endoscopist to reduce waiting times for diagnostic investigation and treatment.
Ms Candy Atherton: Would the Minister be kind enough to publish the numbers of new consultants, doctors and nurses across the entire peninsula? On a recent visit to a hospital trust, I was told that that information was not published as it encouraged people to take up the services provided. It is important for people to know just how many doctors and nurses the Government are providing.
Ms Stuart: I will certainly look at the information that is made publicly available. I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware of the useful device of parliamentary questions.
Developments of the kind I have described can bring their own pressures. Plymouth has in some way been the victim of its own success in opening the new cardiac unit because more patients were referred to the hospital than had been anticipated or planned for, with the result that waiting times rose. There were pressures in other parts of the hospital too, and towards the end of 1999 a number of patients were identified who had waited longer than 18 months for treatment, which breached the patients charter guarantee.
An independent investigation commissioned by the trust found that there had been manipulation of waiting list returns, which was completely unacceptable. The chief executive and deputy chief executive subsequently resigned. However, since then, the trust has been tackling those and other problems and has moved on. We must recognise that good work.
A new chief executive has been appointed and a new management team is being assembled. The number of in-patients waiting on the waiting list, which continued
132WH
to increase until July, has been coming down. By the end of November the trust had reduced the total by over 22 per cent. Similar hard work has resulted in improvements in the number of out-patients who had been waiting over 13 weeks to see a consultant.
I recognise that the trust still faces many pressures. There is a need for more investment, more facilities and more staff. The trust has established a recovery and modernisation steering group to tackle the immediate pressures and to oversee the production of a three-year recovery and modernisation plan. That will ensure that the trust achieves financial stability and meets the waiting list and access targets set out in the NHS Plan. It is the responsibility of all those who work at Derriford, whether consultants, nurses or managers, to work in cooperation with the new management team to ensure that the trust can meet the challenges set by the NHS plan.
Let me now turn to the future. In the NHS plan the Government have set out their vision of what the NHS will be like in 10 years time. It will be an NHS focused around the needs of patients offering fast and convenient high quality care; not one that is characterised by waiting for the GP, waiting to see a consultant or waiting for tests results. Waiting times at every stage in a patient's contact with the NHS are a major cause of public discontent with the service. We have therefore set out ambitious targets in the NHS plan to deal with that.
Maximum waits for out-patients will be cut to three months by 2005. Appointment dates will be pre-booked for a date convenient for the patient. Tests and diagnosis will usually be undertaken the same day. If treatment is necessary it will be arranged there and then with a maximum wait of six months by 2005, which we hope to reduce to three months by 2008. Again the date will be pre-booked to suit the patient.
We need the resources to put these plans into action. In the Budget last year my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced the largest ever sustained increase in funding of the NHS, which will see spending increase over the next five years by one third in real terms. This year South and West Devon health authority received initial allocations that represent significant real increases. It must also be recognised that the major constraint of staffing shortages must be met with more training places. We had already announced an increase of 1,100 extra training places nationally and a further 1,000 will come on stream.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton recognised, the creation of the peninsula medical school will be a major boost for the health community in Devon and Cornwall, not only because of the extra doctors who will be trained there, but the impetus it will give to clinicians and academics to come and work there and take part in the research. I also hope that it will encourage more local youngsters into medicine. There will be support to continue the development of tertiary services in the peninsula.
The trust has been planning how it will meet the requirements of the NHS plan, and it has submitted a strategic outline case with the support of the wider health community, for which my hon. Friend has argued so persuasively, consistently and persistently. That £100 million scheme to develop a planned care centre and to

133WH
reconfigure Derriford hospital is being considered as part of the national prioritisation exercise for the fifth wave of PFI schemes.
I cannot comment now, but I would like to make it clear that we recognise the problems. There has been tremendous investment in the past three years.

City Status Determination
1.30 pm
Mr. Simon Burns: It is particularly fortunate and appropriate that I have secured this debate today because as you will know, Mr. Hancock, it is now almost a month—it was just before Christmas—since it was announced which towns in England and Scotland, but sadly not in Wales, were to be honoured with city status by Her Majesty the Queen. We have one year to go before more towns are given city status to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the Queen's accession to the throne in 1952.
What concerns me and many others is the mystery and the unknown qualities of the process that determines city status. One has to tread carefully, because city status is an honour conferred by the Queen. In reality, of course, politicians in the Home Office make the recommendations and take the decisions that lead to the conferring of city status. I am concerned about that, because one does not need to be a brain surgeon to realise that we are in the run up to a general election; yet, by some strange coincidence, of the numerous towns that bid for city status, those that succeeded contained marginal Labour parliamentary seats within their boundaries. It is odd that, from such a wide variety of applicants, only ones with Labour marginal seats should be so deserving of that honour.
One has to admire the Government. I say that with a degree of envy, having once been a member of a Conservative Government. The Government are highly political every second of every day of every week of every year that they have been in power. To me, as a politician, that is highly commendable. Only once during my time as a Member of Parliament did a Conservative Government confer city status; it was to the town of Sunderland in 1992. No one could claim that there was a parliamentary marginal Conservative seat within 100 miles of Sunderland. We did it on the merits of the case.
Mr. Mike Hancock (in the Chair): Was that now or then?
Mr. Burns: It was in 1992. In the present case, however, it seems strangely suspicious that all three towns had a number of marginal seats within them.
Such an accusation could not be made if the main premise of my debate was met, and we knew more about the criteria for determining city status. What I was taught at school has been proved wrong because, twice in the past 10 years, my town of Chelmsford has failed to secure city status. I was taught that if a town had a cathedral, it must be a city. Chelmsford has had a cathedral since 1914, but it is not a city. Guildford, another town with a cathedral, does not have city status. However, St. David's in Wales has a cathedral; it is a small town, but it has been a city for many years. Others suggest that historic or royal connections may enhance a town's bid for city status. Most interesting, however, are the letters and documents that were leaked to the Northern Echo and the Liverpool Daily Post in March last year, which I am fortunate to have with me. They seem to throw out a great deal of civil service thinking and advice to Ministers on the question of city status criteria.

135WH
I shall quote from the letter of the Home Office constitutional and community policy directorate that was prepared with the assessment of each individual bid. Interestingly, it seems that No. 10 had an interfering hand in the letter, as in most areas of government. The letter says:
Officials at Number 10 have suggested (at a rather late stage in the process) that, in view of the significance of the Millennium, it might be appropriate to create more than one city.
What No. 10 says, Departments tend to follow, so the letter continues:
We are therefore considering taking more than one successful candidate (up to a possible maximum of four).

Ms Julia Drown: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Burns: No.
I do not think that anyone in this room would disagree with the idea that, for anything as significant and important as the millennium, it would be preferable to create more than one city. However, it seems a shame that the Government created two cities in England and one in Scotland, but no city in the Principality of Wales. Similarly, it seems odd to me as a Member of Parliament representing Essex that Essex does not have a single city, despite the fact that the country town is a local administrative centre with a university, a cathedral and royal connections through frequent visits by members of the royal family.
The most significant aspect of the covering letter was that the civil servants stated that the Government considered three factors when assessing a millennium city bid. The first was size, with a normal threshold of a population of 200,000, the second was geographical distinctiveness and significance, and the third was any royal or historical connections. When the document was leaked last March, it came as a bombshell to many people throughout the country who had worked hard to put together bids for city status. If some towns had known in advance that they did not stand a chance of gaining city status, as they did not have a population of more than 200,000, I suspect that they would not have wasted the emotional effort, hard work and financial resources to make a bid, because they would have been disregarded.
The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien), helpfully wrote to Members of Parliament on 29 March 2000 to say, to all intents and purposes, that we should not worry about the leak, because it was not true; all options were open and decisions would be taken on the merits of individual cases. As I said, we did not realise that the overriding criterion at that point was that there had to be a Labour marginal seat within the town boundaries.
I know that the Under-Secretary wrote that letter in good faith to reassure us. The fact that, when the announcement came, the two towns in England had populations of considerably more than 200,000 is probably simply coincidence. However, when we look at the other leaked document from the Home Office—the individual assessment for Ministers of each town that applied—we begin to understand that, notwithstanding what the Under-Secretary said, the threshold of population seems to be significant.
136WH
As an example, let us take Blackburn, which is the constituency represented by the Home Secretary. In many ways, I am reassured that Blackburn did not receive city status because although the Home Secretary excused himself from any deliberations, as was totally above board and right, I assume that ambitious junior politicians would be more than happy to make the Home Secretary's day by giving Blackburn city status. Even the present Government did not have the gall to hit the jackpot on Blackburn. According to civil servants, Blackburn would have failed anyway, because it has
a population of around 140,000, considerably below the threshold for English towns
for city status.
Brighton and Hove—
Mr. Bob Russell: Two towns.
Mr. Burns: Brighton and Hove are two towns and, interestingly, became a city. The civil servant's analysis concedes:
Hove remains clearly separate from Brighton and does not feature significantly in the borough's bid.
However, city status was granted; but then, Hove is a highly marginal Labour seat. Also, Hove with Brighton enhanced the prospect of winning city status in comparison with previous bids because, as the civil servants say:
Brighton's previous applications for city status were unsuccessful largely on account of the town's population falling below the 200,000 threshold.
Chelmsford richly deserves city status, for unanswerable reasons, although I hope that my performance today will not blight its chances in 12 months' time. That is a risk, but I know the Minister from many years ago, and I know that she is eminently reasonable and fair and has a good sense of humour. Provided she is still in office after the general election, I am sure that Chelmsford will not be blighted by this helpful debate. Chelmsford seemed to be doing well in the assessment, because of royal connections, its cathedral and other characteristics. However, sadly,
its population of 165,000 is below the threshold.
Colchester's population of 157,000 is also, regrettably,
well below the 200,000 threshold.
Dover badly missed being chosen because its population is only 103,216, according to civil servants. That is
only just over half of the threshold for English towns.
Ipswich, with its population of 117,000,
falls well below the threshold.
Maidstone, which is, of course, the seat of my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), the shadow Home Secretary, fell well below the threshold with a population of 137,000.
Middlesborough is well below the threshold, as the civil servants have noted.
Preston is significantly below the threshold.
Ms Drown: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Burns: No; I shall mention Swindon shortly.

137WH
Reading, with a population of 143,000, is well below the threshold. Swindon is not well below, but is still below, the threshold.
Ms Drown: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Mike Hancock (in the Chair): Order. I remind hon. Members that the rules for half-hour debates in this Chamber are that if hon. Members intend to speak they must obtain the permission of the initiator of the debate and of the Minister. One hon. Member has done that today, but it is fruitless for any who have not followed the Speaker's advice, given some time ago on the conduct of debates here, to try to intervene. Only if the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) is willing to take interventions will the hon. Member for South Swindon (Ms Drown) be able to intervene in his speech.
Mr. Burns: Swindon seemed really to arouse the ire of civil servants, who took the view that
the application…is poorly constructed and gives the impression of a particularly materialistic town, rather than a rounded community.
Apparently it also has a well-publicised rivalry with Reading, so I shall let the hon. Members for South Swindon and for Reading, East (Jane Griffiths) fight it out among themselves.
Ms Drown: On a point of order, Mr. Hancock. Does not etiquette allow an hon. Member to respond when another hon. Member mentions his or her constituency?
Mr. Mike Hancock (in the Chair): Those conventions relate to the naming of the hon. Member, not a constituency or part of one. The hon. Lady will have her opportunity to intervene if the Minister wants to let her, but not now.
Mr. Burns: Thank you, Mr. Hancock. It seems, notwithstanding the Under-Secretary's letter, that there are criteria and, if so, presumably—as with any competition—there is some benchmark by which to winnow the successful candidates from the unsuccessful. I cannot believe that there are no criteria. It is a pressing issue because presumably we shall go through the whole performance again during the course of the year to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the accession next year. The criteria must be known in a fully transparent way if only to be fair to those towns that aspire to the privilege and honour of city status, so that they will know at least what they are competing for and how they can best make their presentation to the Home Office so as to maximise their chances of a successful bid. It means a great deal, as is shown by the highly competitive nature of the competition last year. People want to enhance their area and to enjoy a greater sense of civic pride by having the honour of city status bestowed on them.
On a serious note, I urge the Minister and the Home Office to seek to ensure that there is far greater transparency so that there is a greater understanding by those wishing to seek city status and those responsible
138WH
for submitting bids of exactly what is being looked for. I also urge that there be an opportunity, if the criteria are considered unfair or ludicrous—such as a population threshold—to argue out the merits and to persuade the Government to think again.
In conclusion, I ask the Minister to ensure that when city status is conferred next year, the process is far swifter. Last year, three towns were made cities to celebrate the millennium. We—and our forebears—have known for 99 years that there was going to be a millennium in the year 2000, and certainly for many years it had been considered a suitable occasion to mark with the creation of some cities. The bids were submitted to the Home Office relatively early in 1999. The wait until 18 December 2000 to determine them—notwithstanding what turned out to be the helpful and sensible interference of No. 10 Downing street—was an unacceptably long time during that year. It would have been better to have made the announcement at the beginning of the millennium year as part of the initial celebrations instead of dragging it out with leaked documents and false starts. I ask that next year, with the anniversary of the Queen's accession, we seek to have the announcements made for all parts of the kingdom as close to the beginning of February, which marks the celebration of the Queen coming to the throne, as possible.
Mr. Mike Hancock (in the Chair): Before I call the hon. Member for Reading, East (Jane Griffiths) to speak, may I ask her to avoid taking interventions, to give the Minister sufficient time to cover all the relevant points raised and to take the eager interventions of her colleagues if she so desires?
1.48 pm
Jane Griffiths: I agree with the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) that it would be beneficial if there were clear criteria for the awarding of city status. I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman that such criteria exist in some shadowy form, and that various towns that made bids were unsuccessful because they did not meet those criteria. I do not believe that that was the case. I believe that the successful bids were so on the basis of merits as assessed by Ministers and others.
In Reading, we were disappointed to be unsuccessful at our second attempt, but we are not down-hearted. Reading is a wonderful place to live and work, and spans history from the 11th century abbey to the 21st century Oracle centre. I look forward to the Minister's response to the hon. Member for West Chelmsford, because he has made some interesting arguments.
1.49 pm
The Minister of State, Home Office (Mrs. Barbara Roche): I congratulate the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) on securing this debate on the procedure for determining city status. It is an important subject, which is dear to the hearts of hon. Members on both sides of the House.
I fully understand the desire of the residents and representatives of pleasant and long-established towns—such as Chelmsford and Reading—that the merits of their towns should be recognised by the conferment of city status. Although such status confers

139WH
no additional powers or functions upon a town, it is clearly a sought-after mark of distinction. That was obvious from the 39 applications that were submitted for the grant of city status to mark the millennium. It was obvious to Ministers, particularly my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, who is responsible for the area, from the size of their mailbags on the issue.
As the hon. Member for West Chelmsford said, city status is a royal prerogative and, traditionally, the reasons for the selection of a town are not divulged. Hon. Members will know, however, that the new cities created for the millennium—Brighton and Hove, Inverness and Wolverhampton—all have long histories as important and distinctive centres for their surrounding areas.
The hon. Member for West Chelmsford clearly feels strongly about Chelmsford and other Members feel equally strongly. It is understandable that people should feel disappointed and want to know why their towns were not honoured on this occasion.
It is somewhat surprising that so many local authorities have been ready to enter a competition without a clear indication of the criteria to be applied to their applications, yet that has, for many years, been part and parcel of the system of conferring city status under the royal prerogative. I assure hon. Members that the applications received were of a high standard, and that they all received fair consideration.
Ms Drown: I wanted to have a wider debate on the issue. However, I am interested in the Minister's view on whether there should be a strict limit on the number of towns that can become cities. We in Swindon were pleased that others were granted city status, but we believe that all those towns that have proved their success, and are cities in all but name, should not have to wait for too long in the queue for recognition. I hope that the Minister will do what she can in the Home Office to ensure that there is not too strict a limit on the number of towns that can become cities.
Mrs. Roche: I can probably best answer that intervention by talking about how we aim to proceed. The cases put forward on behalf of Brighton and Hove, Inverness and Wolverhampton were particularly outstanding, and the three new cities all deserve congratulations on their success.
Mr. Burns: Will the Minister be kind enough to correct the record in one instance? The civil servants' advice to Ministers on the assessment said that Hove was not particularly significant.
Mrs. Roche: The hon. Gentleman is pushing his luck. It is important for me to talk about the process for the granting of city status this time around, and the process for the future.
Mr. Ivor Caplin: If one follows the logic that the hon. Member for West Chelmsford has tried to profess, then without Hove, Brighton and Hove would not be a city.
Mrs. Roche: I note my hon. Friend's point and the strong interest that he and his colleagues in Brighton and Hove have taken in the matter.
140WH
All the unsuccessful applicants have been told that there will be another opportunity for their applications to be considered for a grant of city status to mark the Queen's golden jubilee in 2002. Exceptionally, city status is to be conferred on a suitably qualified town in each of the four countries of the United Kingdom to mark that significant occasion. Further details of the procedure for the granting of city status for Her Majesty's golden jubilee will be announced in the coming months.
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary announced on 18 December that the procedures used in the millennium competition will be reviewed before any announcement is made about the procedures for the granting of city status for the golden jubilee. That review is being undertaken.
The procedures used in the millennium competition have been criticised. However, with great respect to the hon. Member for West Chelmsford, the same procedures have been followed for decades under both Conservative and Labour Administrations. They have come under renewed scrutiny and a number of suggestions have been made, which we want to consider. That is why my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary announced on 18 December that there would be a review of the procedures. Clear criteria have never been applied to determine city status.
I have known the hon. Member for West Chelmsford for some years—not since he was at school, but since we were at university together a mere couple of years ago. The idea that city status is linked to whether a town has a cathedral is erroneous. I researched that and, until Queen Victoria's reign, cities and bishoprics were almost identical in England. For a time, it was the practice to grant city status to towns in England that applied after being granted bishoprics. However, the practice had changed by the end of the 19th century and, in 1888, Birmingham was the first instance of a grant on purely secular grounds. That is an interesting part of our history.
In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Ms Drown), city status is not and never has been a right that can be claimed by towns meeting specific criteria. It is an honour granted sparingly by Her Majesty the Queen on the advice of Ministers. An element of discretion is likely to continue.
In the case of the millennium competition, the factors considered included regional distinctiveness and significance, population, size and the existence of royal and historic links. The appropriateness of those and other factors will be considered in the review of procedures.
The hon. Member for West Chelmsford made much of marginal seats; I must tell him in the kindest way that such comments detract from his argument. I assure hon. Members that, far from being decisive, as some have alleged, such considerations were not taken into account in the competition. The successful towns were all chosen on their own merits.
The results of the millennium competition were announced during the millennium year. That was the only commitment ever made on timing, and it was fulfilled. It might have been possible to determine and announce the results earlier in the year, had it not been for the need to allow time for additional material to be

141WH
considered. That was the material that some hon. Members submitted in response to the invitation from my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary.
It is important to modernise procedures so that they are not only fair, but seen to be fair. The current review of procedures will take account of all the arguments of hon. Members, as well as those made during the
142WH
millennium competition and subsequently by the towns involved. The fruits of that review will be made known when the process leading to conferment of city status to mark Her Majesty's golden jubilee is launched in a few months.
I hope that my comments have been helpful. I commend the review to the House.
It being Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the sitting lapsed, without Question put.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  RUC
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress has been made in implementing a sickness management policy for the RUC and the RUC Reserve; what quality controls are in place; and what have been the results on levels of absence owing to sickness in the RUC. [144386]

  Mr. Ingram
  A sickness management policy was approved by the Chief Constable's Policy Group in December 2000 subject to minor amendments which have now been implemented. The policy is being introduced during January 2001 with management of it devolved to supervisors supported by advice from the Personnel Department. It is not yet possible to determine the effect on absence due to sickness but this will be closely monitored.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many police officers in Northern Ireland there are in each rank; and how many posts there are in each rank. [141940]

  Mr. Ingram
  The following table shows the established and actual strengths of the Royal Ulster Constabulary as at 3 January 2001:

  Rank

  Established

  Actual

  Secondments1

  Chief Constable

  1

  1

  —

  Deputy Chief Constable

  2

  1

  —

  Assistant Chief Constable

  9

  7

  —

  Superintendent ranks

  161

  163

  6

  Chief Inspector

  168

  169

  2

  Inspector

  490

  493

  5

  Sergeant

  1,414

  1,382

  19

  Constable

  6,243

  6,053

  49

  Total

  8,488

  8,269

  81

  Full-time Reserve

  3,202

  2,554

  —

  Part-time Reserve

  1,765

  1,097

  —

  1 Not included in actual figures

  Special Branch
  Mr. Maginnis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what recent discussions he has had with the Chief Constable of the RUC about plans to reduce the establishment of Special Branch; to what extent his plans are based on(a) political considerations and (b) research into the potential for both terrorist and organised crime; and if he will make a statement. [144682]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Secretary of State discusses a broad range of policing issues with the Chief Constable on a regular basis. Changes will be implemented in the light of assessments of the security situation.

  Police Ombudsman
  Rev. Ian Paisley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland has declared a personal interest in the(a) Hamill Inquiry and (b) the Rosemary Nelson Inquiry. [144679]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Police Ombudsman has declared no personal interest in either the Hamill or Rosemary Nelson Inquiries.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Millennium Dome
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what information he received from(a) Mr. Pierre-Yves Gerbeau, (b) Mr. David James and (c) related parties concerning an offer to buy the site of the Millennium Dome. [144711]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 11 January 2001]: The Government are currently in negotiation with Legacy plc, the second placed bidder in the competition for the future use of the Dome. If all goes well we hope to be in a position to exchange contracts in February. No offer has been received from Mr. Pierre-Yves Gerbeau, Mr. David James or any other related party to buy the site of the Dome. The Government have received an expression of interest from Mr. Gerbeau, but the rules of the competition do not allow the Government to treat with third parties while Legacy plc continue to have preferred bidder status.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will list the ownership of each of the Millennium Dome's zones, together with his plans for their disposal, listing the beneficiaries of any sale proceeds in each case. [144715]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 11 January 2001]: All except two of the Millennium Dome's zones are owned by the New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC). The two not in NMEC's ownership are 'Journey' and 'Talk' which are owned by Ford and BT respectively. The content of the zones is a mixture of items owned outright by NMEC and items hired from third parties. The latter are being returned to their owners as the first priority of decommissioning. A range of NMEC assets are subject to private treaty sale and public auctions which are currently intended to be held between 27 February 2001 to 2 March 2001 at the Dome. The aim is that zone structures and assets not sold by private treaty or auction will be dismantled and disposed of during March, subject to the negotiations with Legacy plc proceeding to timetable and plan. The beneficiary of income from the asset disposals owned by NMEC will be NMEC. Any surplus achieved by NMEC, having regard to its assets and liabilities as a whole, will be passed to the Millennium Commission as repayment of Lottery grant.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many visitors to the Millennium Dome(a) paid full prices, (b) paid a reduced price and (c) entered free in (i) November and (ii) December. [144709]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 11 January 2001]: The New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC) has advised that it will be publishing full visitor attendance

  225W
  numbers later in the year once the final accounts for the operational year and all the associated data have been audited. At this stage the NMEC has provided the following statistics, but the hon. Member will wish to note the caveats which have been set out in the footnotes.

  November 2000

  December 2000

  Total free 1

  54,446

  145,749

  Total discounted2

  250,312

  371,614

  Total sponsors from discounted3

  16,284

  17,540

  Full price tickets 4

  82,358

  219,681

  Total attendance5

  387,117

  737,044

  1 Includes free school visits, carers for disabled people, sponsor ticket allocation, accompanying teachers on paying school visits, coach drivers, Greenwich residents, NMEC guests and VIPs. November Free Schools=22,500, December Free Schools=89,500.

  2 This reflects a range of promotions and offers which are normal for the visitor attraction business and which are factored into the company's business strategy. For example, NMEC ran a number of offers and promotions with its sponsors for their customers and also ran a special ticket price for entry after 4.00pm. Key promotions with M&S, Boots, Tesco and BT have been undertaken. The Tesco half price promotion was redeemed in October, BT was redeemed in November and December.

  3 Sponsor tickets were purchased and allocated per each individual sponsorship contract.

  4 This number is an approximation and as such should be used for review purposes only. There is insufficient accuracy for them to be regarded as audited or validated information.

  5 Total attendance does not take into account non-attendance by ticket purchasers. It represents visitor footfall via the admission system and not total tickets sold.

  Note:

  NMEC operated two different systems, one for Ticket Sales (Enta) and one for Admissions (ACS). The admissions system recorded total attendance, but did not show details of the attendance, i.e. purchase source of admission or monetary value of admission. Consequently figures for Free and Discounted tickets are derived from the ticketing system, whereas Total attendance is derived from the admission system.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what independent valuations of the site of the Millennium Dome have been initiated by his Department. [145412]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 16 January 2001]: My Department has undertaken no independent valuations of the Millennium Dome site. A pre-sale valuation of the Dome site has been undertaken in the context of the competition to identify a sustainable long term use for the Dome. This exercise has been led by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. The Government estimate of the financial value of the site is commercially confidential while the process to secure a buyer continues.

  Unlicensed Televisions
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many prosecutions for the use of TV equipment without a licence there were in(a) 1998, (b) 1999 and (c) 2000; and what the monthly trend is. [144939]

  Janet Anderson
  The number of prosecutions for the use of television receiving equipment without a licence was 104,000 in 1998, 78,000 in 1999 and 144,000 in the year 2000. The BBC, which has responsibility for the administration and enforcement of the television licensing system, has indicated that there is no underlying monthly 226W
  trend and that prosecution rates tend to be fairly even across the year, except following specific enforcement initiatives.

  National Foundation for Youth Music
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what support his Department gives to the National Foundation for Youth Music in respect of its youth music action zones. [145431]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  My Department set up the National Foundation for Youth Music as an independent charity. Youth Music was launched by the Prime Minister in 1999, with £30 million of Arts Council Lottery funds to ensure that every child has the opportunity to make music. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State launched the Youth Music Action Zones initiative in December. The £10 million Action Zones initiative will enable young people living in areas of social and economic need to experience music and develop their musical talent. My Department continues to pursue a good working relationship with Youth Music and I look forward to seeing the benefits of this new initiative.

  Digital Broadcasting
  Mr. Lammy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when he will publish for public consultation the BBC's proposals for new licence fee-funded digital television and radio services. [146228]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  The BBC has sought my approval, under clause 2.3 of the Agreement between the BBC and the Government, to replace BBC Choice and BBC Knowledge with four new digital television services, to start five new digital radio services and to make the World Service available in the UK. Under the arrangements set out in my Department's revised guidelines for assessing new BBC public services, which were published on 10 January, I intend to publish the BBC's submission tomorrow for public consultation and will place copies in the Library of the House. This consultation is in addition to the consultation carried out by the BBC itself last year, the results of which are attached to the BBC's submission. The closing date for responses is 28 February.

DEFENCE

  Harriers
  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he has selected an aircraft to meet the requirement to replace the Sea Harrier FA2 and Harrier GR7 aircraft of the joint force Harrier; and if he will make a statement. [146335]

  Mr. Hoon
  The MOD noted in the Strategic Defence Review that the US Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) was a strong contender to meet the requirement to replace the Sea Harrier FA2 and Harrier GR7 aircraft of the joint force Harrier in the early years of the next decade.

  In the light of further work on the various alternatives to meet the Future Carrier Borne Aircraft requirement, and of the successful progress of the JSF Concept Development phase, it has now been concluded that JSF is the option with the best potential to meet our needs. It

  227W
  has accordingly been decided to join the US as a collaborative partner in the next stage of the programme (Engineering and Manufacturing Development)—subject, of course, to the decisions of the incoming US Administration on the future of the programme.

  JSF is a single seat, supersonic aircraft, incorporating advanced 'stealth' technology, that is capable of performing multi-role operations from aircraft carriers and land base. Analysis of the available options demonstrated that, on a through life basis, JSF should meet most cost-effectively our military requirements. It promises to be an outstanding aircraft.

  The UK has been a full collaborative partner with the US in the Concept Development it phase of the JSF programme since 1996. Today in Washington, the Minister for Defence Procurement has signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with the US Government that covers the next phase of the programme, Engineering and Manufacturing Development.

  On current plant, contracts are expected to be awarded for this phase of the programme later this year. Signature of the MoU will enable the UK to participate in the selection of the prime contractor, for which two consortia, one led by Boeing and the other by Lockheed Martin, are competing. Demonstrator aircraft from both consortia have successfully completed a series of initial flight trials.

  The MoU covers only the next development phase of the programme. Defense Secretary Cohen and I have therefore agreed a set of principles that will provide a framework for UK involvement in the JSF programme in the longer term. The principles we have agreed will safeguard UK national interests, ensuring that we retain the military and industrial capability to manage the aircraft effectively through life.

  UK participation as a full collaborative partner in the JSF programme will represent a significant opportunity for UK industry. UK companies have already played a significant role in the programme to date. They are well placed in both of the bidding consortia to win, on merit, substantial high quality work, both in the next phase and over the life of potentially the largest military procurement programme ever. Some 70 British companies including BAE Systems, Rolls-Royce, Smith Industries, Messier Dowty International, Cobham PLC, TRW ASG (Lucas Aerospace) and the Martin-Baker Aircraft Company are well placed in the bidding consortia to win subcontracts on merit.

  The cost to the UK of the next programme phase will be of the order of £1.3 billion, plus a further £600 million worth of work to meet UK national, requirements.

  A number of our European allies are considering participation in the JSF programme. JSF will play a crucial part in developing the transatlantic partnership, in enhancing NATO interoperability and in improving European military capability.

  JSF will form a major part of the UK's future offensive air capability, along with Eurofighter and other air systems, for several decades to come. It has not yet been decided how the total capability requirement will be met over that period. Nor has the JSF variant been decided at this stage that will best meet the UK's requirements, nor the numbers of aircraft that might eventually be
  228W
  purchased. For the Future Offensive Air Systems project, the MOD is continuing to study a range of options, including manned aircraft, cruise missiles and uninhabited combat air vehicles. Allied to these studies will be a programme of technology demonstration, some of which may be collaborative, offering scope for work by the UK aerospace industry.

  I shall place in the Library, and on the MOD website, copies of the MoU relating to the Engineering and Manufacturing Development phase of JSF, and of my exchange of letters with Defense Secretary Cohen.

  RAF Logistics
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to improve the logistics support for the Royal Air Force on deployed operations. [146336]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Strategic Defence Review identified the need for reinforcements of logistics support to the armed forces. As part of the continuing work to provide this, I have recently approved the expansion of 2 Mechanical Transport Squadron at RAF Stafford and the basing of the new Tactical Provost Wing of the RAF police at RAF Henlow.

  2 Mechanical Transport Squadron will be expanded by up to an additional 120 Service personnel during financial year 2001–02. These resources will enhance the RAF's capability to deploy its own force by surface means, and, in particular, to establish and operate on a Joint, in-theatre Line of Communications.

  The creation of Tactical Provost Wing at RAF Henlow will involve the recruitment of an extra 150 RAF police, 50 of them reserves, giving the capability to provide simultaneous coverage of two lines of communication in separate operational theatres. Their task will entail traditional military police skills involving reconnaissance, traffic control and policing of the supply routes, such as those used by 2 Mechanical Transport Squadron, into the operational theatre. The new wing is expected to be fully operational by spring 2002.

  The expansion of 2 Mechanical Transport Squadron and the formation of the Tactical Provost Wing is good news for defence as they will make a significant contribution to improving the sustainability of our armed forces, particularly the Royal Air Force, on deployed operations. The creation of additional posts at RAF Stafford and RAF Henlow also makes good news for the stations and the local economics.

  House Purchase Advance
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many service personnel take advantage of the Long Service Advance of Pay for house purchase; and what the current year's annual budget is for long service advance of pay. [145146]

  Mr. Spellar
  At present there are 13,757 personnel on the Long Service Advance of Pay (LSAP) scheme. In 1998–99, 2,711 advances were made; in 1999–2000, 2,876 were made; and during the period from April to December 2000, 2,015 have been made.

  It is estimated that during 2000–01, long service advances of pay totalling £20.556 million will be made.
  229W
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many homes in Scotland are funded by means of the Long Service Advance of Pay. [145147]

  Mr. Spellar
  This information is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

PRIME MINISTER

  In-patients (Treatment Disparity)
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  To ask the Prime Minister on how many occasions he has received letters from the right hon. Member for South-west Surrey concerning the disparity in waiting times for NHS in-patient treatment between South-west Surrey and Durham in the past year; on how many occasions he has read the letters; and on how many occasions he has replied personally. [143892]

  The Prime Minister
  My Office has received three letters on this subject from the right hon. Member. On each occasion the right hon. Member received a reply either from myself or a Minister in the Department of Health.

  Prime Ministerial Correspondence
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  To ask the Prime Minister if it is his policy to reply personally to letters from Back-Bench hon. and right hon. Members concerning issues raised with him at Prime Minister's Questions. [143891]

  The Prime Minister
  Where I undertake to provide hon. and right hon. Members with information on matters raised with me during Prime Minister's Questions it is my usual practice to write to the Member concerned personally.

  Ministerial Code of Conduct
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to reform procedures for enforcing the Ministerial Code of Conduct. [144199]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him in the House today,Official Report, column 340.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Public Meetings Guidelines
  Dr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what guidelines he follows for using civil servants' time to arrange public meetings between Ministers in his Department and prospective parliamentary candidates in that candidate's prospective constituency; [144658]

  (2) what his policy is towards ensuring political balance in public meetings with representatives of opposition parties organised and paid for through the civil service. [144659]

  Mr. Vaz
  We arrange such events in accordance with the Ministerial Code and the Civil Service Code. If the hon. Member has specific concerns, perhaps he would like to tell me.
  230W
  Dr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, what guidelines were followed by his Department when they issued an invitation to a public meeting on 18 December 2000 in Henley between the Minister for Europe, the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz), Mr. Boris Johnson, the Conservative Party prospective parliamentary candidate for Henley-on-Thames, and a leading representative from the Liberal Democrats. [144660]

  Mr. Vaz
  Participation in this event was conducted in accordance with the Ministerial Code and the Civil Service Code.

  Dr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the cost, of publicity and civil servants time, setting up the debate on 18 December 2000 in Henley between the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) and the Conservative Party prospective parliamentary candidate. [144661]

  Mr. Vaz
  We estimate that the cost of publicity and civil servants' time for the debate came to less than £300.

  War Criminals
  Mr. Alexander
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many suspected war criminals have been arrested by UK forces in Bosnia. [144946]

  Mr. Vaz
  UK forces serving with SFOR have successfully detained 10 war crimes suspects indicted by the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia. They have supported Dutch SFOR troops in the arrest of a further two suspects. An indictee was also shot dead by British SFOR personnel acting in self-defence during a detention operation.

  Cyprus
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many chapters of the European Union application for membership by the Republic of Cyprus have been successfully negotiated; how many remain to be discussed; and if he will make a statement. [144907]

  Mr. Vaz
  I refer my hon. Friend to my reply of 15 January 2001,Official Report, column 28W.

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the rate of remuneration of Sir David Hannay in respect of his work in Cyprus. [145567]

  Mr. Vaz
  Sir David Hannay works on a part-time basis and receives a per diem remuneration which is commensurate with his expertise. I am very grateful for his considerable contribution to the settlement process over the last four and a half years.

  SES Translators
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the(a) average starting salary and (b) current average salary for London-based translators working for the Secret Intelligence Service. [145349]
  231W
  Mr. Robin Cook
  In accordance with long-standing policy, it is not the Government's practice to comment on the details of the salaries of staff of the security and intelligence agencies. Salaries are, however, broadly in line with those of equivalent staff grades within other Government Departments.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many London-based translators with the Secret intelligence Service have(a) been recruited or (b) resigned and retired in each of the last five years. [145350]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  In accordance with long-standing policy, it is not the Government's practice to comment on details of the staffing of the security and intelligence services.

  Exports (Iraq)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the applications for exports to Iraq submitted in the last year which have been blocked in the 661 UN Committee by(a) Her Majesty's Government's representative and (b) other members of the Committee; and if he will indicate the value of the exports concerned. [145430]

  Mr. Hain
  The UK currently has on hold less than 2 per cent. of contracts, worth $595 million, circulated to the UN Iraq Sanctions Committee We only put contracts on hold where there are serious concerns that the goods could be used in Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction programmes. Holds are generally placed temporarily until assurances have been received about the end-use or in-country monitoring of these goods. By comparison, at the end of October 2000, Iraq's bureaucracy was holding back the delivery of US$1.1 billion worth of goods already approved by the Sanctions Committee.

  As for holds placed by other members of the Sanctions Committee I would refer my hon. Friend to the detailed information on contracts processing which can be found on the Office For Iraq Programme's website: http://www.un.org/Departments/oip/.

  MOX Fuel
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on which date he first received advice from the British Embassy in Japan that discussions should begin with the Japanese on returning the Takahama MOX fuel to the UK, following the discovery of the data falsification at Sellafield. [145693]

  Mr. Hain
  We and the Japanese Government regularly discuss all aspects of the disposal of MOX fuel. The British Embassy in Tokyo routinely played a role in this process along with other sections of HMG. Such internal consultations form a necessary part of the business of government, and the preparation of advice for Ministers. The possible return of MOX fuel was one of a number of issues relating to the nuclear industry in which the Embassy was involved.

  Christians (India)
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received 232W
  concerning (a) violence directed against the Christian minority in India and (b) the recent abduction and beating of two Christian priests in Gujarat. [145759]

  Mr. Hain
  We are aware of continuing incidents of religious intolerance in India, including reports of an attack in Rajasthan on two priests from Gujarat in early January. We have regularly raised our concerns over such incidents with the Indian Government, including during my visit to India in November.

  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he is taking to support the Prime Minister of India's recent reaffirmation of his commitment to secularism and religious toleration in India. [145760]

  Mr. Hain
  India is a secular country where the right to freedom of religion is enshrined in the Constitution. We support the Indian Prime Minister's commitment to these principles and we will continue to urge him to ensure that the rights of minorities are upheld.

  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Indian authorities concerning the recent incidents of violence directed against the Christian minority in India, including attacks on churches in Vyara Taluka, Jwalapur and Bokaro, and a serious assault on a Catholic priest in Gwalior. [145758]

  Mr. Hain
  We are aware of reports of attacks on Christians in India, including those in Gujarat, Uttar Pradesh, Bihar and Madhya Pradesh mentioned. We continue to raise our concerns over such incidents with the Indian authorities. I discussed this issue with my counterpart, Ajit Panja, during my visit to India in November. The Indian Government can be in no doubt of our concern.

  Hurriyat Conference
  Mr. Woolas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Government of India in respect of the issuing of passports to the proposed delegation to Pakistan of the All Party Hurriyat Conference. [145533]

  Mr. Hain
  Our High Commissioner in India, Sir Rob Young, has raised this issue with the Indian Government. He has made it clear that we hope the Indian Government will respect the right to travel to All Party Hurriyat Conference members.

  Cornish Language
  Mr. Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent assessment he has made of the case for(a) Welsh, (b) Scottish Gaelic, (c) Irish, (d) Cornish, (e) Scots and (f) Ulster-Scots to be specified for the purposes of (i) Part II and (ii) Part III of the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. [145868]

  Mr. Vaz
  The Government are required to apply the provisions of Part II of the Charter in respect of all the languages which meet the Charter's definition of a regional or minority language. The Government have decided to recognise that this definition embraces Welsh, Scottish-Gaelic, Irish, Scots and Ulster-Scots. The Department of the Environment, Transport and the
  233W
  Regions is, through the Government Office of the South West, co-ordinating an assessment of whether Cornish also meets the definition, with the help of the findings of an independent academic study completed last year.

  The Government have decided that the language whose use in public life should be promoted under the provisions of Part III of the Charter are Welsh, Scottish-Gaelic and Irish.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Carpet Manufacturers
  Mr. Alexander
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the support provided by his Department for British carpet manufacturers. [145773]

  Mr. Byers
  My Department is in regular contact with the British Carpet Manufacturers' Association on a wide range of industry issues and, the full range of support schemes operated by the DTI is available to the industry.

  More specifically, my Department, through Trade Partners UK, the joint Department of Trade and Industry/Foreign and Commonwealth Office organisation responsible for export promotion, provides export promotion services to the carpet sector, including assistance through Support for Exhibitions and Seminars Abroad (SESA). For instance, we are supporting 15 UK carpet companies who are exhibiting at DOMOTEX in Hanover this month.

  Direct Mail
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent representations he has received about the regulation of direct mail; and if he will make a statement. [144957]

  Mr. Byers
  My Department receives correspondence on matters concerning postal regulation, including some with reference to direct mail. This has included representations on the European Commission draft directive on postal services (where it is proposed that direct mail be subject to the same limits as other mail) and on consumer issues, for example concerning the volumes of unsolicited mail.

  Textile Industry (Job Losses)
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many of the workers who were declared redundant at the Dewhirst Clothing Factory in Peterlee have been assisted into work by the Textile Taskforce; and if he will make a statement. [144297]

  Mr. Caborn
  On 23 March 2000, Dewhirst made 504 staff redundant. It is not the responsibility of my Department to monitor their subsequent employment route but I have consulted colleagues at the Employment Service. Despite an extensive tracking exercise it is not possible to produce definitive figures. The latest information available showed 66 former Dewhirst staff had found employment, 68 were still registered as unemployed and the balance have accessed training opportunities. The protocol established by the North East Textiles Taskforce was immediately brought into effect 234W
  to ensure immediate access to rapid response funding. A strategic response group was set up, led by Easington district council, to co-ordinate the resources available.

  Regional Selective Assistance
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list those projects which have been allocated funding from the regional selective assistance originally offered to BMW, indicating the amount given in each case. [144824]

  Mr. Caborn
  The following is a list of projects which have been approved by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and which will count against the £129 million (originally offered to BMW for investment at Longbridge) which was made available to support good quality projects in the West Midlands:

  £

  Estimated costs

  Initial actions and administrative uplift for Advantage West Midlands (AWM)

  300,536

  Total

  300,536

  Projects arising from the Rover Taskforce interim report 1,2: Modernisation of the automotive base:

  Supplier Scheme

  12,000,000

  Extend Autolean

  250,000

  Extend Accelerate

  1,750,000

  Online learning

  100,000

  Promoting regional suppliers

  250,000

  Diversifying the economy:

  Attracting inward investment

  500,000

  Regeneration:

  High tech Corridor study

  250,000

  Support to the workforce:

  Publication of a redundancy booklet

  35,000

  Support to families and the community:

  Advice Support and Counselling services

  270,000

  Total

  15,405,000

  Grants offered to firms under the Regional Selective Assistance (RSA) scheme:

  Marconi

  25,000,000

  H&R Johnson

  1,600,000

  Total

  26,000,000

  Total approved against the £129 million

  42,305,536

  1 These figures are based on the Rover Taskforce Interim Report: the supplier scheme has since been re-estimated at £8 million.

  2 Further proposals based on the Rover Taskforce final report are expected to be submitted shortly.

  Post Office Network
  Mr. Grieve
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what powers he has to require the Post Office to keep open(a) rural and (b) urban sub-post offices; and if he will make a statement. [145897]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 16 January 2001]: Under successive Governments, no Minister has had the power to require the Post Office to keep open sub-post offices. However because of this Government's commitment to the network, the Post Office have accepted a formal

  235W
  requirement to maintain the rural network and to prevent any avoidable closures of rural post offices placed on them in my letter dated 17 November to the Chief Executive.

  Bass plc
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received from the Belgian Economics Minister relating to his decision to block the acquisition by Interbrew SA of the brewing interests of Bass plc. [145390]

  Dr. Howells
  The Belgian Economics Minister, Charles Picque, wrote to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on 8 January raising a number of points about my right hon. Friend's decision on Interbrew's acquisition of Bass Brewers. Mr. Picque argued that my right hon. Friend's decision did not affect the interests of Scottish & Newcastle and that an

  Innovation Budget

  £000

  Financial year1

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  England

  80,536

  147,207

  268,582

  144.704

  98,580

  91,370

  90,729

  55,026

  106,037

  56,064

  48,969

  East

  19,335

  17,287

  28,286

  17,573

  8,872

  10,897

  5,987

  4,405

  5,611

  4,322

  4,777

  East Midlands

  7,198

  10,282

  9,036

  6,711

  8,155

  5,264

  4,351

  4,165

  3,260

  3,749

  2,787

  London

  7,353

  74,850

  126,064

  37,549

  27,830

  16,812

  50,852

  21,960

  71,894

  29,190

  25,467

  Merseyside

  2,053

  2,992

  5,401

  2,741

  1,089

  1,666

  2,227

  2,207

  3,236

  1,478

  641

  North East

  1,434

  1,120

  4,929

  1,738

  3,029

  2,087

  1,083

  1,886

  1,157

  1,012

  2,278

  North West

  4,967

  5,855

  8,198

  5,529

  3,171

  2,248

  2,366

  3,246

  3,829

  826

  1,068

  South East

  16,184

  14,184

  58,060

  45,443

  26,266

  40,463

  10,816

  8,116

  8,444

  5,485

  3,834

  South West

  7,894

  6,439

  9,211

  11,221

  7,520

  3,120

  4,236

  3,244

  2,227

  2,663

  1,959

  West Midlands

  10,207

  9,479

  14,718

  8,742

  6,549

  4,715

  5,052

  2,706

  3,347

  3,645

  1,588

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  3,911

  4,719

  4,679

  7,457

  6,099

  4,098

  3,759

  3,091

  3,032

  3,694

  4,570

  Scotland

  2,233

  4,784

  27,061

  6,641

  15,646

  3,752

  4,900

  16,084

  5,372

  5,764

  13,423

  Wales

  1,153

  1,859

  4,472

  2,646

  3,561

  2,728

  3,313

  2,417

  2,749

  2,057

  1,902

  Northern Ireland

  356

  569

  506

  421

  515

  298

  501

  310

  590

  38

  521

  Not Applicable2

  14,892

  30,416

  29,686

  36,222

  21,137

  38,130

  27,811

  39,715

  24,694

  17,103

  11,598

  Work Done Abroad

  147

  424

  650

  1,383

  164

  181

  67

  —

  142

  19

  115

  Work Being Subcontracted

  221

  —

  —

  —

  24

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  99,538

  185,259

  330,957

  192,017

  139,627

  136,459

  127,321

  113,552

  139,584

  81,045

  76,528

  1 The data have been extracted from the Department's Selective Assistance Management Information System (SAMIS) database

  2 The 'Not Applicable' figures relate to awareness projects, the costs of which benefit nationwide and therefore cannot be broken down further by individual region

  Department of Trade and Industry—Grants—Regional Selective Assistance and Regional Enterprise Grants Expenditure

  £000

  Financial year1

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  England

  106,433

  97,252

  81,588

  76,891

  102,812

  124,866

  126,977

  110,739

  125,765

  114,288

  89,379

  East2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  33

  641

  2,066

  1,510

  2,114

  691

  546

  East Midlands

  1,315

  1,645

  994

  937

  1,484

  5,283

  7,245

  10,535

  10,535

  7,055

  3,982

  London2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  64

  576

  1,724

  2,961

  2,692

  3,196

  2,269

  North East

  34,406

  30,049

  29,122

  28,810

  33,608

  36,397

  45,257

  23,637

  36,789

  19,989

  17,477

  North West3

  32,922

  29,069

  25,535

  20,263

  22,269

  34,112

  25,106

  23,847

  22,227

  28,233

  25,571

  South East2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  36

  921

  4,127

  4,092

  4,382

  3,240

  5,020

  South West

  5,030

  5,150

  6,437

  5,895

  7,220

  9,147

  7,567

  7,541

  4,463

  9,354

  4,160

  West Midlands

  20,146

  17,512

  8,721

  10,733

  14,356

  14,799

  14,247

  25,434

  29,816

  30,595

  20,569

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  12,614

  13,827

  10,779

  10,253

  23,742

  22,990

  19,638

  11,182

  12,747

  11,935

  9,785

  Scotland

  39,260

  69,594

  66,231

  61,939

  72,540

  79,167

  73,087

  74,743

  77,747

  74,449

  52,043

  Wales

  35,896

  31,738

  56,534

  59,490

  50,646

  58,158

  54,613

  48,479

  76,820

  81,219

  46,456

  Northern Ireland4

  127,100

  132,100

  138,000

  105,600

  117,600

  132,900

  131,200

  137,100

  156,100

  153,300

  133,000

  Total

  308,689

  330,684

  342,353

  303,920

  343,598

  395,091

  385,877

  371,061

  436,432

  423,256

  320,876

  1 Data have been extracted from the Industrial Development Act 1982 Annual Report for the Financial Years 1992–93 to 1999–2000

  2 Regional Selective Assistance was not available in the East, London and the South East before 1993–94

  3 The figures for the North West include data for Merseyside-these data cannot be broken down further

  4 Northern Ireland operate their own scheme and the grants provided have a different range of financial incentives to those provided in the rest of the United Kingdom

  236W
  alternative decision could have been taken which would not have penalised Interbrew so heavily. My right hon. Friend will reply as soon as is practicable.

  Grant Aid
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry for each year between 1989–90 and 1999–2000, how much DTI grant aid was awarded(a) within each of the regions of England, (b) to Scotland, (c) to Wales and (d) to Northern Ireland. [145208]

  Mr. Caborn
  A detailed breakdown of the Department's grants by regions is given in the following annexes for the Innovation Budget, for Regional Selective Assistance and Regional Enterprise Grants.

  The Department of Trade and Industry does not collate information on a regional basis for other grant schemes and such information could be compiled only at disproportionate cost.

  Export Licence Applications
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what issues are involved in the decision on whether to grant export licence application 16047 from Aylesbury Automation; and to which other Government Departments he has circulated this export licence. [145333]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 15 January 2001]: Licences to export arms and other goods whose export is controlled for strategic reasons are listed by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry acting through DTI's Export Control Organisation (ECO). All relevant individual licence applications are circulated by the DTI to other Government Departments with an interest as determined by those Departments in line with their policy responsibilities. Licence application 16047 was circulated to FCO and MOD.

  All applications, including ELA 16407, for a licence to export arms and other goods on the Military List (Part III of Schedule 1 to the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1994) are considered against the consolidated EU and national arms export licensing criteria, as announced by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Hain), on 26 October 2000, Official Report, column 199–203W.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many export licence applications were received by the Export Control Organisation in August 2000; how many of those applications are still awaiting a decision; and if he will make a statement. [145331]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 15 January 2001]: In August 2000, the Export Control Organisation (ECO) received 927 applications for a Standard Individual Export Licence (SIEL). On 11 January 2001,86 of these applications were awaiting a decision.

  The ECO also received 35 applications for an Open Individual Export Licence (OIEL) in August 2000. On 11 January, 15 of these applications were awaiting a decision. It is to be expected that these cases will take longer to process than SIELs because of the potentially wide variation in the goods and country coverage of OIELs.

  Postal Services Commission
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the duties of the Postal Services Commission in respect of the United Kingdom; who its members are; by whom they were appointed; when next they will report; and to whom. [144828]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  The duties of the Postal Services Commission are set out in the Postal Services Act 2000. These include the responsibility to: exercise its functions in the manner which it considers is best calculated to ensure the provision of a universal postal service at a uniform tariff; further the interests of users of postal services, wherever appropriate by promoting effective competition between postal operators; promote efficiency and economy on the part of postal operators; and have regard to the need to ensure that licence holders are able to finance activities authorised or required by their licences.
  238W
  The Postal Services Commission was initially established as an advisory body. Its membership was announced in the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Mr. Borrow) on 6 June 2000, Official Report, columns 186–87W. On 6 November 2000 the independent Postal Services Commission was established as announced in the answer to my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble, 6 November 2000, Official Report, column 18W. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry made these appointments. In accordance with section 45 of the Postal Services Act 2000, the Commission is required to make annual reports to the Secretary of State on its activities after the end of each financial year (which runs to 31 March each year). The Secretary of State is required to lay a copy of each annual report before Parliament and to publish each report.

  EU Postal Monopolies
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what draft legislation is under consideration by the institutions of the European Community concerning upper limits to state postal monopolies; what alternative limits are being proposed; and what parliamentary proceedings(a) have taken place and (b) need to take place prior to imposition of such limits. [144827]

  Mr. Byers
  On 30 May 2000, the European Commission adopted a proposal for a Draft Directive, COM (2000) 319, to amend the existing Directive 97/67/EC, to further open up to competition the European market for Postal Services. The key element of the Commission's proposal is to reduce the price/weight limit from the current level of 350 grams/5 times the standard letter tariff at the fastest category, to 50 grams/2.5 times the standard letter tariff in 2003, and then to do a review before deciding on the next steps for further market opening to take effect in 2007.

  The European Parliament has considered COM(2000)319 and has proposed a number of amendments to the European Commission proposal—including an alternative weight formula of 150 grams. Member states have discussed the European Commission proposal in the Council but have not reached any agreement.

  This proposal is subject to Parliamentary scrutiny and is being considered by House of Commons and House of Lords Scrutiny Committees. An Explanatory Memorandum (10544/00) and the European Commission proposal, were submitted to Parliament on 9 November 2000, followed by a supplementary Explanatory Memorandum (10433/00) on 11 December 2000. The House of Lords Select Committee on the European Union has examined the proposals and issued a report (Session 2000–01, HL Paper 6).

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the references in the Official Journal of the European Community and Union concerning the lowering of the permitted upper ceiling on state monopoly postal services, indicating the parliamentary proceeding in respect of each, and the limits so imposed in grams and ounces. [144826]
  239W
  Mr. Byers
  The proposed Directive is document COM (2000) 319, and has yet to be published in the Official Journal. This is the first proposal to lower the permitted upper ceiling agreed in Directive 97/67/EC. The changes to the permitted price and weight limits and the requirement for parliamentary scrutiny are detailed in my previous answer which was answered early today, PQ No. 144827.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will tabulate the successive upper limit required by European Union legislation on permitted national monopoly letter delivery indicating the date of commencement of each, the weight in grams and ounces and the inland stamp value in the United Kingdom at the end of each period. [144825]

  Mr. Byers
  The EU 1997 Directive 97/67/EC on common rules for the development of the internal market of community postal services and the improvement of quality of service set limits on the postal services which may be reserved to items weighing less than 350 g and costing less than five times the standard letter tariff in the fastest category. The then UK monopoly limit of £1 by value was within this threshold. In September 1999 the Postal Services Regulations (S.I. 1999/2107) defined the UK limits £1 and 350 g in line with the Directive.

  Knight Piesold
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the applications by Knight Piesold for export guarantees in the last 20 years and the projects subsequently approved. [145315]

  Mr. Caborn
  ECGD has received from Knight Piesold over the last 20 years the following applications in respect of capital goods, projects and related services which have been the subject of an ECGD guarantee.

  Exporter

  Details of project

  Guarantee issue date

  Value of guarantee £ million

  Vosper Thomeycroft

  Develop and Extend Naval Base at Mombassa

  27 May 1987

  20

  Kvaerner

  Installation of Gas Turbine Generator

  31 July 1986

  8.7

  Knight Piesold

  Design and Construction of a hydro Electric Dam

  14 August 1986

  17.5

  Knight Piesold

  Hydro Electric Power Project (Ewaso Ngiro)

  4 October 1990

  21

  Crown Agents

  Pipeline Equipment to Import White Oil Products

  1 July 1988

  1.7

  Crown Agents

  Spur Pipeline to Moi Inter Airport

  24 March 1986

  2.4

  M. J. Gleeson

  Rehabilitation of Jomo Kenyatta Int. Airport

  2 August 1990

  33.5

  A&T

  Supply of a Rural Telecommunications System

  20 July 1990

  13

  BOC Ltd.

  Oxygen Producing Plant

  16 June 1982

  2

  British Rail Board

  Supply 74 Railway Coaches

  16 April 1982

  27.9

  Crown Agents

  Supply of Plant and Equipment

  30 April 1982

  22.4

  Line of Credit

  Various

  29 October 1982

  3.5

  Line of Credit

  Various

  22 August 1985

  3.6

  Airbus

  Two A310–300 Airbus

  9 May 1986

  23.9

  Vosper Thorneycroft

  Fast Patrol Craft

  1 August 1984

  108.2

  Vosper Thorneycroft

  Patrol Craft Refit

  19 December 1988

  11.6

  Short Brothers

  12 Tucano Aircraft

  13 September 1988

  31.2

  Crown Agents

  Salvage and Berthing Tugs

  3 November 1982

  13.6

  Details of applications which have not been the subject of a guarantee are subject to legitimate confidentiality and are not included in the table.
  240W

  Country/Project

  Guarantee issue date

  Papua New Guinea

  Goods and services for gold/copper mine

  18 February 1982

  Goods and services for gold/copper mine

  10 July 1986

  Australia

  Kenya

  Hydro Electric Dam (Turkwell Gorge)

  14 August 1986

  Hydro Electric Power Project (Ewaso Ngiro)

  4 October 1990

  Pending the issue of a guarantee, details of applications are subject to legitimate confidentiality.

  ECGD
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on how many occasions paperwork for applications for export credit guarantees received by the ECGD has gone astray in the last 20 years; and what procedures are in place to prevent this from happening. [145317]

  Mr. Caborn
  ECGD has no record of such instances. ECGD believes its procedures for handling applications are entirely adequate.

  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the applications for credit guarantees relating to Kenya received by the ECGD in the last 20 years, indicating the companies, amounts and projects in Kenya involved. [145314]

  Mr. Caborn
  Over the last 20 years, ECGD has issued 27 guarantees worth £381 million in respect of exports of capital goods, projects and related services to Kenya.

  Details of the project are no longer held on nine of these guarantees worth £12 million which were issued between 1982 and 1988 and which have since lapsed. Five of these guarantees were issued to Booker Agriculture, two to Marconi, and one each to Cable & Wireless and Slough Smith Rail.

  Details of the remaining 18 guarantees are as follows:

  Ewaso Ngiro Dam
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what export credit was given in relation to the building, construction and consultancy work associated with a concrete arch dam in Ewaso Ngiro, Kenya. [145316]

  Mr. Caborn
  ECGD's records show that they have provided support for two projects involving the construction of dams in Kenya.

  In August 1986, ECGD supported a £10.8 million loan between ANZ Banking Group and the Government of Kenya to assist in the financing of a contract between The Kerio Valley Development Authority and Knight Piesold for the provision of services in relation to the construction of a hydro-electric dam.

  In 1990, ECGD supported a £37 million loan between ANZ Grindlays Bank and the Government of Kenya. The purpose of the loan was to assist in the financing of a contract between Knight Piesold and the Kenya Power Company. Under the contract, Knight Piesold would provide various services in relation to the Ewaso Ngiro (South) hydroelectric project.

  Ilisu Dam
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he expects the full environmental impact assessment report on the Ilisu dam to be completed. [145924]

  Mr. Caborn
  We understand that the revised environmental impact assessment report was presented to the Turkish authorities in December. The Export Credits Guarantee Department is awaiting an invitation to a presentation of the report to the export credit agencies involved in the project. We do not yet know when this will take place. We have said that the report will be made publicly available before a decision is taken regarding ECGD support. However the report is not our property, and we cannot make it available without permission of the owners, Sulzer, the Swiss main contractor. The Export Credits Guarantee Department has written to Sulzer recommending that the report should be made publicly available as soon as possible.

  Minimum Wage (Vale of Clwyd)
  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many workers have benefited from the introduction of the minimum wage in the Vale of Clwyd. [144453]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 8 January 2001]: The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from Karen Dunnell to Mr. Chris Ruane, dated 17 January 2001:
  The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your recent question about the number of workers in Vale of Clwyd who have benefited from the National Minimum Wage (NMW) (144453). I am replying in his absence.
  The Office for National Statistics (ONS) has published estimates of the number of jobs paid at less than NMW rates for 1998, 1999 and 2000. These are based on an improved methodology using data from both the New Earnings Survey (NES) and Labour Force
  242W
  Survey (LFS). Estimates for the United Kingdom and Government Office Region are available on the National Statistics website at: littp://statbaseinsbase/themes/labour_market/nmw_lowpay_tables.asp
  No estimates are available for Parliamentary Constituencies.

TREASURY

  Wales (GDP)
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans the Office for National Statistics has to provide monthly GDP statistics for Wales; and if he will make a statement. [144055]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from John Pullinger to Mr. Elfyn Llwyd, dated 17 January 2001:
  The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your recent question on monthly GDP statistics for Wales (144055). I am replying in his absence.
  The Office for National Statistics (ONS) does not publish monthly GDP statistics for Wales ONS is currently discussing with the National Assembly for Wales (NAW) ways of improving the statistics for Wales over a range of different areas. It is also producing a report on the provision of economic statistics by the ONS for the NAW, which will be made publicly available on the NAW website as soon as possible, hopefully by the end of January.

  Unemployment Rates (Greater London)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the current level of unemployment within the Greater London area is among(a) men and (b) women. [144135]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from John Kidgell to Mr. Tom Cox, dated 17 January 2001:
  The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your recent question about the level of unemployed men and women in Greater London (144135). I am replying in his absence.
  The Labour Force Survey (LFS) is the main source of labour market data on individuals used by National Statistics. Seasonally adjusted International Labour Organisation (ILO) unemployment within the Greater London area was 150,000 (7.3%) among men and 105.000 (6.5%) among women between August-October 2000.
  The measure of unemployment derived from the LFS is defined on a consistent and internationally recognised basis set out by the ILO. It counts as unemployed people who are (a) without a paid job (b) available to start work within the next two weeks and (c) have either looked for work in the last four weeks or are waiting to start a job already obtained.

  Darwin House, Shrewsbury
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will review his decision not to donate Darwin House, Shrewsbury to the National Trust; and if he will make a statement. [144099]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 8 January 2001]: Darwin House is currently occupied by the Valuation Office Agency. The building is not surplus to the Agency's requirements and the Agency has no plans, at present, to vacate the building.

  Economic Activity (Scotland)
  Mr. Grieve
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the economic activity rate in Scotland is for(a) men, and (b) women, for age groups (i) 16 and 17, (ii) 18 to 24, (iii) 25 to 34, (iv) 35 to 49, (v) 50 to 59, (vi) over 60 and (vii) 16 and over in each year from 1995 to 2000. [145662]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from Karen Dunnell to Mr. Dominic Grieve, dated 17 January 2001:
  The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your recent question about the economic activity rate in Scotland for men and women in various age groups for 1995–2000 (145662).
  The Labour Force Survey (LFS) is the main source of labour market data on individuals used by National Statistics. The table overleaf shows the economic activity rate in Scotland for men and women in the age groups for 1995–2000.
  According to the LFS definition, the economically active are people aged 16 and over who are either in employment or International Labour Organisation (ILO) unemployed.

  Percentages economically active—Scotland by age and sex; spring 1995 to spring 2000; not seasonally adjusted

  Year1

  All 16 and over

  16–17

  18–24

  25–34

  35–49

  50–59

  60 and over

  All persons

  1995

  62.0

  55.8

  77.6

  83.8

  83.2

  66.6

  11.9

  1996

  61.5

  58.0

  75.6

  83.3

  82.4

  67.3

  11.2

  1997

  62.0

  59.2

  76.7

  82.3

  83.8

  66.7

  12.6

  1998

  61.9

  59.6

  76.3

  84.1

  83.2

  68.5

  11.0

  1999

  61.5

  60.6

  69.7

  83.5

  83.9

  69.5

  11.4

  2000

  62.5

  57.7

  75.7

  84.5

  85.0

  68.3

  12.2

  Men

  1995

  71.2

  58.1

  82.1

  93.0

  91.4

  73.8

  17.8

  1996

  71.1

  59.7

  81.4

  92.8

  89.3

  77.2

  18.4

  1997

  70.7

  56.0

  80.2

  91.9

  89.9

  77.1

  18.6

  1998

  70.4

  61.9

  81.6

  91.6

  89.0

  77.4

  17.5

  1999

  69.7

  61.5

  74.9

  91.7

  90.1

  76.2

  17.7

  2000

  71.0

  58.4

  82.0

  91.7

  90.6

  77.1

  19.5

  Women

  1995

  53.6

  53.4

  72.9

  74.4

  75.1

  59.9

  7.6

  1996

  52.6

  56.1

  69.7

  73.8

  75.7

  57.9

  6.0

  1997

  53.9

  63.0

  73.2

  72.6

  77.8

  56.8

  8.2

  1998

  54.0

  57.1

  70.9

  76.6

  77.5

  60.1

  6.2

  1999

  53.9

  59.4

  64.5

  75.2

  77.8

  63.0

  6.8

  2000

  54.6

  57.0

  69.3

  77.1

  79.6

  59.8

  6.8

  1 Spring

  Source:

  ONS Labour Force Survey

  Mortgage Tax Relief (Scotland)
  Mr. Grieve
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the total cost of mortgage tax relief was in Scotland in(a) 1996–97, (b) 1997–98, (c) 1998–99 and (d) 1999–2000; and what the estimated cost is in 2000–01. [145667]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The total cost of tax relief on mortgage interest repayments in Scotland in 1996–97 to 1999–2000 is published in table 5.3 of "Inland Revenue Statistics", copies of which are held in the House of Commons Library. The total cost of mortgage interest tax 244W
  relief in Scotland in 2000–01 will be published in "Inland Revenue Statistics" by October 2001. The estimated cost of mortgage interest tax relief in the United Kingdom for 2000–01 is in the Tax Ready Reckoner and Tax Reliefs booklet published by HM Treasury in November 2000.

  Rail Disruptions
  Mr. Grieve
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his estimate is of the cost to the Scottish economy of the recent rail disruptions. [145660]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) on 28 November 2000,Official Report, column 582W.

  Euro
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his assessment is of the degree of convergence between the UK and economies in the euro zone between 1992 and 2000; and what his estimate is of the degree of convergence between 2001 and 2004. [145635]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Sustainable convergence between Britain and the economies of a single currency is one of the five economic tests set out by the Government. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has said we will make another assessment of the five economic tests early in the next Parliament.

  Mr. Grieve
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the attitude of Scottish business towards(a) entering and (b) staying out of the euro. [145658]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The determining factor underpinning any Government decision on joining the single currency is whether the economic case is clear and unambiguous. Because of the magnitude of the decision, the Government believe that, if a decision to enter is taken by Government, it should be put to a referendum of the British people.

  Gold
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what average price per ton was secured by the Bank of England for the recent sale of gold which he instructed them to carry out. [145631]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 15 January 2001]: As stated in the National Audit Office report on "The Sale of Part of the UK Gold Reserves", published on 12 January, the average price secured for the gold sold at the nine auctions held to date is $275.01 per ounce (paragraph 8 and 2.16).

  Service Industries
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the average growth in earnings for service industries in each year from 1974, at 2000 prices. [145741]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 16 January 2001]: The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.
  245W
  Letter from Karen Dunnell to Mr. Phil Willis, dated 17 January 2001:
  The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your recent question about the average growth in earnings for service industries in each year from 1974 (145741). I am replying in his absence.
  The Average Earnings Index (AEI) is the Office for National Statistics' preferred method for measuring changes in average earnings. Annual growth rates in average earnings for services are not available before 1982, the attached table shows this data from 1982.

  Annual growth rates in average earnings for service industries AEI, Great Britain

  Percentage

  Year

  Service1

  1982

  7.9

  1983

  8.9

  1984

  6.3

  1985

  6.3

  1986

  7.8

  1987

  7.6

  1988

  8.8

  1989

  8.8

  1990

  9.7

  1991

  7.4

  1992

  5.9

  1993

  2.5

  1994

  3.2

  1995

  2.6

  1996

  3.3

  1997

  4.5

  1998

  5.1

  1999

  5.1

  20002

  4.5

  1 Not seasonally adjusted

  2 The most recent data available are from October 200. Therefore the annual growth rate for 2000 is based on data from January to October for 1999 and 2000.

  Debt Relief (HIPC)
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many countries are receiving debt relief through the Highly Indebted Poor Countries initiative. [145849]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 16 January 2001]: So far 22 countries have reached Decision Point under the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) initiative. This is the point where debt relief has been agreed; 100 per cent. relief in the case of the UK.

  The Chancellor announced on 2 December last year that the UK would no longer benefit from the historic debts of the 41 HIPC countries. This means that, for those countries yet to secure debt relief because of civil wars, external conflict, or absence of a poverty reduction programme, all payments will be held in trust for the day that they become eligible for debt relief.

HEALTH

  Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth Health Authority (Funding)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how much funding in each of the last three years he has given to the Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth Health Authority; [145158]
  246W
  (2) what funding his Department has given to St. George's Hospital, Tooting, in each of the last three years. [145440]

  Mr. Denham
  The table outlines cash funding from the Department to Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth Health Authority in the three year period 1997–2000. The funding is broken down into cash limited and non-cash limited services.

  Funding for Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth, 1997 to 2000

  £000

  Cash limited1

  Non-cash limited

  1997–98

  402,653

  32,800

  1998–99

  422,066

  30,010

  1999–2000

  495,416

  33,380

  1 Includes payments made on HAs behalf

  The figures given in the second table are for total income of the St George's Hospital National Health Service Trust from the Department. However, it should be noted that this includes income other than that received from the Department (via health authorities and primary care groups) by means of contracts.

  St. George's Healthcare NHS Trust—total income from Department of Health

  Year

  £

  1997–98

  173,135,000

  1998–99

  185,927,000

  1999–2000

  227,622,000

  Source:

  St. George's Healthcare NHS Trust summarisation schedules 1997–98, 1998–99 and 1999–2000

  NHS Costs
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the total cost per annum to the NHS is of(a) all public relations staff, materials and related expenditure including external contracts and (b) annual reports of health authorities, trusts and PCGs. [144934]

  Mr. Denham
  The information requested is not collected centrally.

  Nursing Home Charges
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what impact his proposals for the NHS to pay for nursing care in nursing homes from October 2001 will have on the amount residents are charged when they are being helped with their fees by the social services. [144922]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 15 January 2001]: There will be no change in their personal contribution for most people currently receiving means-tested nursing home care through social services, because their incomes will not be high enough for them to be contributing to the cost of their nursing care. Any personal contribution they make to their care will go towards the cost of the services provided by social services.

  Nursing home fees are made up of three components—nursing care, personal care and accommodation costs (accommodation, heating, food etc). Subject to legislation, the National Health Service will become responsible for the nursing care provided by a registered nurse. This will

  247W
  reduce the proportion of the fees for which social services are responsible. The proportion of the fees for which a means-tested contribution may be made will be reduced by the amount paid by the NHS. Where people's personal contribution means they are currently' paying towards their nursing care, they will in future receive their nursing care free through the NHS.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what account was taken in respect of payment of fees for services in nursing homes, of the high level of fees paid by self-funders, and of the likely change in fee levels over the period covered by the Comprehensive Spending Review. [145870]

  Mr. Hutton
  The spending review has included provision for forecast future inflation, including fee levels in residential and nursing homes. It has also made provision for the introduction of free nursing care in nursing homes from October 2001. The main beneficiaries of this change will be the people who currently pay all their care costs.

  Day Care (Elderly People)
  Mr. Gorrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what statistical data he collects on the provision of local authorities of day care for the elderly. [145580]

  Mr. Hutton
  Annual information is collected from local authorities in England on the number of clients aged 65 or over who, following an assessment of needs, are receiving day care provided by or on behalf of the local authority. Detailed statistics are available in the statistical report "Community Care Statistics 1999–2000—Referrals, Assessments and Packages of care for adults". Data on expenditure by local authorities in England on non-residential services for the elderly are also collected annually and are published in the Statistical Bulletin "Personal Social Services current expenditure in England: 1998–99". Copies of both publications are available in the Library.

  Mental Health Patients
  Mr. Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to change the guidelines on the use of general wards in hospitals for patients with mental disabilities; and if he will make a statement. [145452]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 15 January 2001]: The Department does not issue guidelines on the use of general wards in hospitals for patients with mental disabilities. In common with any case involving co-morbidity, we would expect local services to develop appropriate liaison services to ensure the patient is treated in the setting which meets his or her priority needs.

  A thorough assessment of a patient's risk and attention to their individual care needs should be carried out when first being admitted into hospital; this is particularly important where a patient possibly has dementia or is otherwise confused.

  National Institute for Clinical Excellence
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he has been notified by NICE of the date for completing its technology appraisals of beta interferon and glatiramer; and if he will make a statement [145722]
  248W
  Mr. Denham
  We expect the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) to consult on draft guidance later in the year, following the development of further economic modelling on beta interferon and glatiramer acetate (Copaxone). Subsequently, NICE plans to issue its guidance to the National Health Service by November 2001, unless there are appeals against the outcome of the appraisal.

  Hospital Cleanliness
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what assessment he has made of the link between hospital cleanliness and the frequency of occurrence of infection in patients; and if he will make a statement; [145743]

  (2) what cost savings he estimates the NHS will make by reason of a reduction in the frequency of occurrence of infection in patients as a result of his recent initiative on hospital cleanliness; and if he will make a statement. [145787]

  (3) what estimate he has made of the future costs to the NHS of an increased frequency of occurrence of infection in patients as a result of a lack of hospital cleanliness. [145744]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 16 January 2001]: Recent research at Thames Valley University has identified, through clinical evidence, links between poor environmental hygiene and the transmission of microorganisms causing hospital-acquired infection. It has not been possible to make any meaningful assessment relating to cost savings, because of the lack of clear evidence on the connection between dirty hospitals and the rates of hospital-acquired infection.

  Patients have a right to be treated in a hospital that has a high standard of cleanliness. No one should be treated, or, have to recuperate, in a dirty or uncared for environment. An initiative to improve standards of cleanliness in hospitals is now well underway. An inspection of 405 National Health Service acute trusts was carried out last year. Unannounced visits to these trusts are taking place now and will be completed by the end of February. These visits will help us establish what has been done and what improvements still need to be made. We will ensure that standards of cleanliness are improved, and more importantly, that they are maintained in the future.

  Substance Misuse Treatment Orders
  Ms Blears
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has for improving the delivery of substance misuse treatment orders. [145940]

  Ms Stuart
  The cross-departmental review of illegal drugs that reported as part of last summer's spending review 2000 concluded that a new national treatment agency should oversee a pooled treatment budget for substance misusers, with the aim of increasing the numbers treated and raising the standard of that treatment.
  249W
  The Department of Health has published a consultation document containing proposals, drawn up in collaboration with other interested Departments, for setting up such an agency. Copies have been placed in the Library.

  Hospital Discharges
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 9 January 2001,Official Report, column 538W, concerning hospital discharges, if he will publish the results of the survey completed on 11 December 2000 in the same format. [145871]

  Mr. Denham
  These data have not yet been collated centrally; they will be published in due course.

  Number of pupils aged 11–15 in each local education authority with a selective admission system January 2000

  Number of pupils aged 11–15 in maintained secondary schools1

  Percentage of pupils aged 11–15 in grammar schools

  Percentage of pupils aged 11–15 in modern schools

  Percentage of pupils aged 11–15 in comprehensive schools

  Barnet

  17,432

  10.5

  0.0

  89.5

  Bexley

  14,722

  21.5

  33.3

  18.1

  Bromley

  16,817

  7.1

  0.0

  92.9

  Enfield

  17,151

  5.4

  0.0

  94.6

  Kingston upon Thames

  6,951

  18.9

  51.4

  19.0

  Redbridge

  14,716

  8.1

  0.0

  91.9

  Sutton

  11,556

  28.7

  0.0

  71.3

  Birmingham

  61,558

  7.9

  0.0

  92.1

  Walsall

  18,391

  5.1

  0.0

  94.9

  Wolverhampton

  14,052

  3.8

  0.0

  96.2

  Liverpool

  29,083

  2.1

  0.0

  94.8

  Wirral

  20,556

  21.9

  16.2

  57.2

  Trafford

  14,049

  36.2

  55.5

  3.0

  Calderdale

  12,775

  11.7

  0.0

  88.3

  Kirklees

  23,425

  3.2

  0.0

  90.5

  North Yorkshire

  34,056

  4.3

  3.8

  85.9

  Buckinghamshire

  26,783

  39.1

  58.1

  0.0

  Poole

  6,402

  20.0

  0.0

  33.8

  Bournemouth

  8,628

  17.6

  0.0

  13.7

  Stoke-on-Trent

  14,242

  3.2

  0.0

  96.8

  Wiltshire

  23,496

  5.0

  8.5

  81.3

  Reading

  5,380

  20.1

  0.0

  79.9

  Slough

  6,522

  37.0

  29.1

  26.5

  Devon

  34,949

  1.6

  0.0

  98.4

  Plymouth

  15,629

  13.0

  0.0

  87.0

  Torbay

  7,335

  26.6

  0.0

  73.4

  Essex

  76,006

  2.8

  0.0

  97.2

  Southend-on-Sea

  9,622

  28.9

  33.0

  24.3

  Kent

  76,810

  28.1

  34.1

  28.5

  Medway

  16,810

  22.1

  35.9

  20.3

  Lancashire

  70,252

  3.7

  2.4

  93.9

  Telford and Wrekin

  9,675

  6.9

  0.0

  85.9

  Cumbria

  29,261

  2.1

  0.0

  97.9

  Gloucestershire

  32,310

  12.7

  0.0

  87.3

  Lincolnshire

  37,734

  24.1

  43.6

  32.3

  Warwickshire

  28,778

  6.8

  23.6

  65.3

  1 Including grammar, modern, comprehensive, technical, middle deemed and other secondary schools

  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list, for each local authority retaining a selective admission system, the name of each grammar school and its legal status and for each school(a) the total number of pupils, (b) the number of pupils in the sixth form and (c) the number of pupils in the sixth form as a percentage of the total number of pupils. [145026]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  [holding answer 16 January 2001]: The schools specified in The Education (Grammar School Designation) Order 1998 No. 2219 as amended by The

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Selective Admissions
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list for each local authority retaining a selective admissions system(a) the total number of pupils in years seven to 11 in maintained schools and (b) the percentages of this total in the schools designated by his Department as (i) grammar, (ii) modern and (iii) comprehensive. [145028]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The information requested is shown in the table.

  Education (Grammar School Designation)(Amendment) Order 1999, No. 2456 are those designated as grammar schools for the purposes of Chapter II of Part III of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998. The list of schools and subsequent amendments can be found in the Statutory Instruments 1998 No. 2219 and 1999 No. 2456 on the following Government website www.legislation.hm so.gov.uk.

  Information about individual schools is not normally published. Where individual school information is published as in the School Performance tables, the

  251W
  information is first checked with the schools concerned. These data on (a) the total number of pupils, and (b) the number of pupils aged 16+ are available in the performance tables which can be accessed on the Department's website www.dfee.gov.uk/perform.

  New Deal for Schools
  Mr. Hilary Benn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the schools in the Leeds, Central parliamentary constituency which have received funding under the New Deal for schools since May 1997, showing the amount of funding in each case. [145341]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 15 January 2001]: The following table shows those schools in the Leeds, Central constituency which have benefited from investment

  New Deal for Schools—allocations for schools in the Leeds, Central constituency

  Year/school

  Project

  Total allocation (£)

  1997–98

  Included within packages:

  General maintenance

  11,402,000

  Copperfield College

  Agnes Stewart CE High

  Blenheim Primary

  Grafton School

  Merlyn Rees High

  Mount St. Mary's RC High

  Toilet provision/refurbishment

  1998–99

  Included within a two school package:

  Replacement of dangerous staircases

  1146,625

  Mount St. Mary's RC High

  Included within a five school package:

  Implementation of Fire Officer's safety recommendations

  184,000

  Matthew Murray High

  Primrose High

  Included within a five school package:

  Implementation of Fire Officer's safety recommendations

  168,250

  Merlyn Rees High

  St. Francis of Assisi RC

  Replacement of old boilers

  82,500

  St. Joseph's Primary

  Included within a two school package:

  Replacement of old boilers

  154,000

  Merlyn Rees High

  1999–2000

  Included within an eight school package:

  Fire Officer's safety recommendation package

  115,000

  Copperfield College

  Included within a 10 school package:

  Fire Officer's safety recommendation package

  115,000

  Grafton School

  Included within a 10 school package:

  Replacement of boilers and heating plant

  428,950

  Hugh Gaitskell Primary

  2000–01

  Matthew Murray High

  Electrical refurbishment

  701,500

  Mount St. Mary's RC High

  Science facility refurbishment

  538,301

  Mount St. Mary's RC High

  Maths faculty refurbishment

  301,684

  Included within a six school package:

  Heating improvements

  329,588

  Rosebank

  Included within a seven school package:

  Heating improvements

  336,050

  Corpus Christi

  Rosebank

  Included within an eight school package:

  Electrical works

  675,625

  Cottingley

  Included within a 15 school package:

  Kitchen refurbishment

  405,375

  Richmond Hill

  1 Denotes allocations made to package projects. Leeds local education authority will be able to advise the value of investment made in these schools.

  252W
  through the New Deal for Schools programme, which commenced in 1997–98. These allocations formed part of the £16.5 million investment made in schools in Leeds local education authority under the New Deal for Schools programme.

  In total, since 1997, Leeds local education authority has received some £98.6 million of funding for capital investment in school buildings.

  Nationally, investment in school buildings has tripled from £683 million a year in 1996–97 to over £2 billion in 2000–01. It will be £3.2 billion in 2003–04, including grant, credit approvals and Private Finance Initiative credits. There will be central Government investment of £7.8 billion in school buildings in England from 2001–02 to 2003–04.

  Youth Consultation
  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what steps he is taking to consult young people about Government policy. [144201]

  Mr. Boateng
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave on 8 January 2001,Official Report, column 395W.

  Steiner Education Techniques
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans the Government have to fund the provision of Steiner education techniques in maintained schools. [145723]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  We have been considering with the Steiner Waldorf Schools Fellowship what the scope might be for providing public funding to Steiner schools. These discussions continue and no conclusions have yet been reached.

  Personal and Social Education
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will issue new guidelines on the provision of appropriate education on

  £million

  1996–97

  1997–98

  (a)1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  (b)2001–02

  (i) Standing Spending Assessment

  214.883

  216.529

  221.852

  229.205

  240.298

  245.944

  (i) Revenue Support Grants1

  139.547

  142.351

  141.390

  143.336

  146.390

  (1) 151.853

  (2) 149.746

  (iii) Education Special Projects: Education Action Zone

  —

  —

  —

  0.500

  0.500

  0.500

  (ii) Housing Investment Programme

  0.014

  9.996

  8.170

  9.816

  28.557

  12.863

  (iv) Single Regeneration Budget2

  0.526

  2.995

  7.961

  8.279

  8.447

  35.944

  (v) Crime Prevention

  —

  —

  —

  0.977

  0.790

  4—

  1 We are currently consulting on two options for 2001–02. The first option (1) proposes the introduction of a 'floor and ceiling', the second option (2) proposes using the same damping rules as 2000–01.

  2 These are the SRB figures for the Kings Cross Partnership scheme. There are two other SRB schemes from which Islington benefit, however it is not possible to identify the spend in Islington as they are multi-borough schemes.

  3 Estimated.

  4 Not yet known.

  Notes:

  1. The Education Standard Spending Assessment allocation, which provides for some education special projects, is included in the figures at (i). Information on funding for individual education special projects cannot be aggregated centrally.

  2. The Crime Reduction Programme is funded by the Home Office. It started in April 1999 and is due to end in 2002. Figures include those for the Targeted Police Initiative, CCTV, Youth Inclusion Programme, Drug Arrest Referral Initiative and the Crime Reduction in Secondary Schools Initiative.

  ACRE
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how he proposes to ensure that, where the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment provides advice to him that will rely on research which has not been peer reviewed or previously published, the wider scientific and research community is informed of it in order to provide a check on the advice to Government. [142570]

  Mr. Meacher
  I ensure that the wider scientific and research community is informed by making the documents and advice available to the public as outlined. Later this year we plan to improve availability by placing copies of applications for consent, including the supporting research results, on the Department's website.
  254W
  health, relationships and sexual orientation for pupils aged 16 and over. [144088]

  Mr. Wicks
  We have no current plans to issue guidelines on health, relationship and sexual orientation for pupils over 16. However, the DfEE does provide Sex and Relationship Education Guidance which applies to pupils aged five to 16 in maintained schools.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Islington
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what total Government expenditure on the London Borough of Islington(a) was for each of the past five years and (b) is planned for 2001–02, broken down into (i) revenue support order Standard Spending Assessment (ii) education special projects, (iii) housing capital spending, (iv) single regeneration budget and (v) crime prevention. [143399]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 20 December 2000]: The information requested is, as far as possible, given in the table:

  The Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment (ACRE.) provides statutory advice to Government on applications for consent to release genetically modified organisms for research purposes or for placing on the market as products. The information in the applications has to be based on the results of research that must either be included with the application or available in the public domain. Specific information from the application is placed on the statutory public register held in my Department and the entire application, including research results, is available on request. ACRE's advice is also placed on the public register and their advice and minutes of their meetings are on the Department's website. The entire process is therefore open to scrutiny.

  However, the European and domestic legislation make provision for the applicant to request that certain

  255W
  information to be deemed commercial in confidence and not disclosed. This cannot apply to information about environmental risks, which cannot be kept confidential. In this country we endeavour to ensure that commercial in confidence information submitted in applications is kept to a minimum and only permit specific information to be withheld while it is the subject of an application for intellectual property rights. Thereafter that information is also made public.

  Where another member state is the lead competent authority dealing with an application to place a GMO product on the market, the status of the information submitted is a matter for that lead member state to decide. In the past this has resulted in some documents submitted to support applications being withheld.

  Environment Council
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what the outcome was of the Environment Council held in Brussels on 18 and 19 December; and if he will make a statement. [143755]

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the matters discussed and issues decided upon at the Ministerial Environment Council on 18 and 19 December 2000. [145277]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Deputy Prime Minister and I represented the UK at the Environment Council in Brussels on 18 and 19 December 2000. One Common Position was agreed, one proposal was adopted at First Reading in agreement with the European Parliament, and three sets of Council Conclusions were agreed.

  The Council expressed its willingness to meet in Oslo for discussions on climate change with the Umbrella Group (including the US, Japan, Canada and Australia). After a lunchtime telephone discussion between the Troika and representatives of the Group, the Presidency reported that the Oslo meeting would not take place as the Group felt there to be insufficient common ground at the present time. Council Conclusions broadly reflect the outcome of these discussions, although the UK made a minutes statement to clarify one part of the Conclusions.

  Council reached agreement on a Community Frame work for co-operation to promote sustainable urban development. The Council agreed on a budget of euro 14 million over a four-year period from 2001, the same figure as finally proposed by the European Parliament in amending the Commission's original proposal of euro 12.5 million over the same period. Since Council agreed the proposal in the same terms as voted by the European Parliament it was adopted without the need for a second reading.

  Council reached Common Position on the proposed Framework Directive on Assessment and Management of Environmental Noise. This will introduce a common EU standard for noise measurement, harmonised noise level monitoring and mapping, along with a new EU noise indicator, but does not impose an EU wide limit value for ambient noise. Council also invited the Commission to make proposals for new or more stringent binding noise emissions limits from specific sources, including vehicles and outdoor machinery.
  256W
  Conclusions were agreed on global environmental governance, essentially to strengthen the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) and improve the co-ordination of international environmental institutions. The EU will look into the possibilities of increasing its contribution to UNEP providing other contributors do likewise. Detailed proposals on these issues will be developed for discussion at the European Council in Gothenburg next June, in preparation for the Rio + 10 Conference in 2002.

  Proposals for Directives on Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) and Restriction of use of certain Hazardous Substances in electrical and electronic equipment (RoHS) were discussed. The Presidency explained that the EP had not given its opinion so Common Position was not achievable, but it aimed to develop a view on a common approach. I made it clear that the proposals had not cleared Parliamentary Scrutiny and I could not, therefore, agree a text. However, a useful discussion enabled a clearer view to emerge of the possible range for agreement on the timetables for producer responsibility, and for recovery and recycling targets.

  Council adopted, without debate, brief Conclusions on the Commission's review of the Auto Oils II programme calling for further proposals on fuel specifications and the control of vehicle emissions. Orientation debates were held on: the application of the Aarhus Convention to European Institutions, as regards access to environmental information; the Commission's white paper on Environmental Liability; and on traceability and labelling of GMOs.

  Over dinner Ministers received informal progress reports from the Commission on the following, as there had been no time for taking these items during Council: Sixth Environmental Action Plan; the review of the EU chemical legislation; the planned Green Paper on Integrated Product Policy; Community guidelines on State Aid for the Environment; international negotiations on the Persistent Organic Pollutants Convention; and the Resolution adopted by the General Affairs Council on 4–5 December on the Precautionary Principle.

  Sefton Borough
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps he has taken to ensure that the Metropolitan Borough of Sefton has acted to meet the criticisms of the Local Government Commission concerning its efforts in serving the various communities within the borough. [144933]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  As we made clear to Sefton when announcing our decision on the Commission's recommendations, it is for the council to improve its services throughout the borough and to ensure that it is more in touch with its local people.

  With the enactment of the Local Government Acts 1999 and 2000, Sefton, as all other councils, are under a duty to obtain best value in their service delivery and to come forward with a new constitution ensuring more efficient, transparent and accountable decision taking.

  Beaches (Radioactivity)
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many beaches are regularly monitored for radioactivity in the North West Region. [144943]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Environment Agency monitors more than 70 publicly accessible sites along the North West Coast including beaches, mud flats, salt marshes and harbours. The results of this monitoring are published annually in the Agency's report "Radioactivity in the Environment". The latest report covering 1999 results will be published at the end of January. Copies will be placed in the Library of the House. The Agency requires nuclear site operators to undertake monitoring of the environment in the vicinity of their site. Monitoring is also undertaken by the Food Standards Agency and some local authorities.

  Scrap Tyres
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what his Department's policy is on the land filling of scrap tyres; and if this activity will be prohibited from 2003 in line with the EC Landfill Directive. [144931]

  Mr. Mullin
  The Landfill Directive requires landfill sites opened after 16 July 2001 to cease accepting whole used tyres from 16 July 2003 and shredded tyres from 16 July 2006. For existing landfill sites the requirement is that they cease to accept whole used tyres and shredded tyres "as soon as possible" in accordance with the site conditioning plan agreed with the Environment Agency and, in all cases, no later than 15 July 2009. The Government intend to transpose these requirements into domestic legislation later this year.

  Millennium Dome
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions which Ministers(a) discussed and (b) decided how the Dome sale should proceed. [144766]

  Ms Armstrong
  [holding answer 11 January 2001]: The ministerial team considering the Legacy bid includes:
  The Deputy Prime Minister;
  Lord Falconer, Minister of State at the Cabinet Office and Shareholder of the New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC);
  Andrew Smith, Chief Secretary to the Treasury;
  Hilary Armstrong, Minister for Local Government and the Regions and
  Janet Anderson, Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport was involved during the early part of the competition, but on advice from officials he withdrew from any part of the consideration of the qualifying bids and from the subsequent decisions on shortlisting and granting of preferred bidder status for the reasons set out in his reply to an answer given to the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) on 16 January 2001, Official Report, column 135W.
  258W
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what discussions officials in his Department have had with representatives of(a) Lattice Properties and (b) British Gas with regard to the sale of the site of the Millennium Dome. [145418]

  Ms Armstrong
  [holding answer 16 January 2001]: Officials from my Department were present at one meeting in November 2000 between English Partnerships and Lattice Properties, concerning the potential sale of the Dome and contractual issues related to such a sale. Those contractual issues relate to the original purchase of the land from British Gas by English Partnerships, and therefore will be matters for discussion between English Partnerships and Lattice Properties and/or British Gas.

  May I also take this opportunity to inform the House about the respective roles of the New Millennium Experience Company and English Partnerships in selling the Dome.

  Now that the Millennium Experience has finished, the prime focus of the New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC) is on discharging their outstanding obligations and achieving an efficient wind-up.

  English Partnerships (EP) continues to manage, on behalf of Government, the process of selling the Dome, in close conjunction with NMEC.

  To facilitate a smooth sale process, and rationalise the arrangements within the public sector, a new agreement was signed by NMEC and EP on 12 January, to vary the original agreement to lease between the two bodies.

  The new agreement provides for NMEC to terminate its occupancy of the site after it has returned all items owned by third parties. English Partnerships will then carry out the remainder of the work necessary to sell the site.

  The agreement reflects the Government's decision about how the proceeds from the sale of the Dome are to be divided. In making this decision the Government have had regard to the need to balance the reasonable interests of the taxpayer and the lottery player respectively. The Government expect to apply these principles to any future sale of the Dome, irrespective of whether the current negotiations with Legacy plc are successful. The proceeds are to be divided in the following way:
  The competition and other costs will be deducted from the payments for the Dome site made on Completion and the ground rent later payable on the Dome site. Of the remainder, half will be paid to English Partnerships as owners of the land, and half to the New Millennium Experience Company as owners of the Dome structure. Once NMEC has been wound up, it is intended that any remaining share of the proceeds will pass to the Millennium Commission.
  The same split will be applied in principle to payments made in respect of the land adjacent to the Dome which is also included in the sale, up to a threshold fixed in monetary terms. Above that threshold all payments will go to English Partnerships.
  The precise figures involved in any division of proceeds will not be known until a sale is finalised and costs ascertained. Certain further details, eg relating to clawback/profit share, are bound up with the current negotiations with Legacy plc, and are therefore commercially confidential; however, it is expected that broadly the same principles outlined above will apply. Currently Forecast costs to be deducted as explained above include about £15 million in relation to certain decommissioning requirements and approximately £7 million for the Dome competition.

  Torbay Unitary Authority
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what funding has been provided by his Department to the Torbay Unitary Authority in each of the last three years. [144908]

  £million

  Nature of funding

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Revenue Support Grant

  45.489

  46.700

  46.209

  Income from National Non-Domestic Rates

  29.087

  31.366

  35.416

  Local Government Re-organisation Supplementary Credit Approval

  5.611

  3.305

  —

  Housing Investment Programme1

  1.172

  1.242

  2.463

  Housing Revenue Account Subsidy

  1.470

  41.287

  51.299

  Capital Receipts Initiative2

  0.720

  0.644

  —

  Cash Incentive Scheme3

  0.075

  —

  —

  Loan Charges: Defective Housing

  0.007

  40.007

  50.007

  Transport Supplementary Grant

  0.042

  0.329

  —

  Transport Annual Capital Guideline

  0.042

  0.329

  —

  Transport Block Supplementary Credit Approval

  0.062

  0.698

  1.272

  Rural Bus Challenge Grant

  —

  0.143

  —

  Rural Bus Subsidy Grant

  0.008

  0.008

  0.008

  Capital Challenge (Supplementary Credit and Basic Credit Approvals)

  0.600

  1.016

  —

  1 Including Disabled Facilities Grant and Private Sector Renewal Support Grant.

  2 Included in Housing Investment Programme from 2000–01

  3 No allocations made to local authorities under this scheme since 1998–99

  4 Provisional

  5 Estimated

  CAA Pension Scheme
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement about the impact of the Transport Act 2000 on the CAA pension scheme. [145401]

  Mr. Mullin
  The Transport Act 2000 enables the Secretary of State to make an order providing for the allocation of assets, rights, liabilities or obligations between different sections of the Civil Aviation Authority Pension Scheme, subject to consultation with the Scheme Trustees. The provisions require the Secretary of State, in making an order, to secure that every potential beneficiary is in materially at least as good a position, as respects pension arrangements, as a result of the order. The Secretary of State proposes to exercise the power before the establishment of the Public Private Partnership for National Air Traffic Services, in order to ensure an equitable division of the fund between separate CAA and NATS sections.

  Warnborough College Site
  Dr Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when his Department received the latest planning application for the development of the former Warnborough College site in Boars Hill, Oxford; and when he expects to make a decision. [145746]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The application was received just before the Christmas holidays on 15 December. A decision on whether to call in the application will be made as soon as possible, hopefully within the next few weeks.

  Dr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what inquiries and research his Department is undertaking as part of
  260W
  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The principal kinds of funding which this Department has provided to the Torbay Unitary Authority in 1998–99,1999–2000 and 2000–01 are shown in the table. These include grants and borrowing approvals for revenue and capital expenditure.

  its consideration of the latest planning application regarding the Warnborough College site in Boars Hill, Oxford. [145747]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  None. The Secretary of State had all the information he requires to decide whether he ought to call in the application for his own determination.

  Planning Decisions
  Dr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what targets there are for the speed of decision-making in his Department on planning applications. [145748]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The Government expect local planning authorities to determine 80 per cent. of planning applications within eight weeks. We have set a Best Value Performance Standard for 15 authorities with the poorest record on processing planning applications, who will be required to determine a minimum of 65 per cent. of applications within eight weeks in 2001–02. A small number of planning applications are called in by the Secretary of State for his own decision. Government Offices for the Regions are asked to issue 80 per cent. of call-in decisions within 13 weeks of receipt of the inspector's report and 100 per cent. within 20 weeks.

  Waste Incineration (Essex)
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what the planning status is of each site in the county of Essex which has been identified as a possible location for a waste incinerator. [145845]

  Mr. Mullin
  The sites at Whitehall Road, Colchester; North Weald Airfield, Epping Forest; and Courtauld Road, Basildon; have been identified in the draft Essex and Southend Waste Local Plan as potential locations for
  261W
  major waste management facilities, but the waste planning authorities recognise that they may be developed for alternative industrial uses. The other five identified sites at Rivenhall Airfield, Silver End, Braintree; land east of Warren Lane, Stanway; Pitsea Landfill site, Basildon; Rayleigh sub-station, Al29/A130, Rayleigh; and Sandon, Chelmsford are exclusively allocated for major waste management facilities only. The draft Waste Local Plan does not indicate a preference for a particular type of facility at any of these sites, but states that incinerators with energy recovery may be permitted provided that certain specified criteria are met.

  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has received from Essex county council about the county's draft Waste Local Plan; and if he will make a statement. [145847]

  Mr. Mullin
  The draft Essex and Southend Waste Local Plan was the subject of a lengthy public inquiry at which all objections were considered by an independent Inspector. The Inspector's report is currently being considered by the waste planning authorities, and in due course they will publish their response to the Inspector's findings and their proposed modifications to the plan.

  When this matter was debated in the House on 12 December 2000, I explained that, in view of the Secretary of State's quasi-judicial role, it would be inappropriate for me to comment on the merits of the Essex and Southend Waste Local Plan. I also gave my assurance that we will carefully examine the proposed modifications published by the waste planning authorities in the light of the Inspector's recommendations, the Government's waste strategy and national policies on waste disposal.

  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will seek medical and scientific evidence from the World Health Organisation and the European Union on the use of incinerators to burn waste in other countries; and if he will make a statement. [145844]

  Mr. Mullin
  Incinerators emit a variety of pollutants, of potential concern on health grounds, as indeed do many industrial processes. Our regulation of incinerators therefore requires emissions to be tightly controlled, at a minimum consistent with the limit values prescribed in EU legislation. These regulatory decisions, and the limit values themselves, are based on the best evidence from the scientific and medical community on the effects of air pollutants, including WHO and EU sources, (who commissioned work explicitly for the recently adopted Waste Incineration Directive).

  Any new information from the World Health Organisation or the European Union, and any substantial scientific studies of the health impacts of waste incinerators to be published in the scientific literature are kept under review by officials. If necessary this can be referred for consideration by expert advisory committees such as the Committee on Medical Effects of Air Pollutants.

  Water (Access)
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what 262W
  recent discussions his Department have had with national park authorities about access to water for non-powered craft; and if he will make a statement. [145438]

  Mr. Mullin
  My officials have had discussions on access to water for non-powered craft with a number of park authorities in the normal course of business. In addition, we expect shortly to commence a research project on access to water, in which the researchers are likely to consult the park authorities.

  Butterflies
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to introduce stricter controls governing the transportation of butterflies and their larvae between farms; and if he will make a statement. [145867]

  Mr. Mullin
  The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 is the principal legislation in the UK governing the protection of wildlife and sets out comprehensive statutory protection for endangered wild species and their habitats. Section 9 of the Act prohibits the unauthorised killing, injuring, taking, possession, sale or disturbance in a place of shelter or protection, of any wild animal listed on Schedule 5 to the Act. Certain species are protected only in respect of certain activities.

  There are 25 butterflies and fritillaries listed on Schedule 5 of the Act. Six of these are afforded full protection and the rest are protected under section 9(5) which prohibits unauthorised sale. There are also eight moth species listed on Schedule 5, all of which are afforded full protection.

  The Government's statutory adviser undertakes a quinquennial review of Schedule 5 and recommends additions and deletions. Any changes from the next quinquennial review are likely to be introduced in 2002–03.

  Rail Safety
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what studies he has commissioned in respect of the reliability and robustness of train protection warning system loop aerials. [145027]

  Mr. Hill
  My right hon. Friend has commissioned no such studies. The Train Protection Warning System (TPWS) aerial loops form part of the equipment fitted to the track. The reliability and durability of this equipment has been demonstrated by factory tests and by extensive trials involving traffic loads. I understand that both Railtrack and the Health and Safety Executive's Railway Inspectorate have accepted the basic design.

  Cornish Language
  Mr. Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what timetable he has set for the assessment of the case for Cornish to be specified for the purposes of the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. [145869]
  263W
  Ms Beverley Hughes
  We will complete our assessment of Government's position on Cornish in relation to the Charter as quickly as possible, with the help of the findings of the independent academic study completed last year.

  Rail Subsidies
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what conditions he has attached to public money given to the railway industry as subsidy in relation to the priority for its repayment before dividends are paid to shareholders. [145925]

  Mr. Hill
  Subsidy is paid to the railway industry in recognition of benefits which cannot be captured through the passenger fare box or freight charges. The conditions attached define what is to be delivered. Passenger franchise agreements provide for penalties for poor performance by train operators. There is a penalty and incentive regime for Railtrack and the Rail Regulator has powers, strengthened by the Transport Act 2000, to enforce Railtrack's compliance with the conditions in its licence to operate the rail network. Dividends for shareholders are for the companies to decide.

  Barn Owls
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to improve the labelling of rodenticide products in respect of the danger they pose to barn owls; and if he will make a statement. [145456]

  Mr. Mullin
  The use of rodenticides is controlled to limit the risk to birds of prey, including barn owls. The labels of all anticoagulant products require users to prevent access to bait by birds and non-target animals, and to search for rodent bodies and the remains of baits and to dispose of them safely. The use of the more potent products is restricted to professional users, for indoor use only. The independent Advisory Committee on Pesticides recently agreed that the current labelling policy should continue.

  HSE has produced a guidance sheet on the safe use of rodenticides, and MAFF is currently preparing a guidance document on rodenticide use. MAFF is also funding research into the effects on predatory birds from the use of anticoagulant rodenticides in rural areas, which should provided a better basis for assessing the potential for secondary poisoning. HSE is conducting discussions with interested parties, including English Nature and the RSPB, on action that might be taken to protect further birds of prey.

  Cyclist Deaths
  Mr. Page
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many cyclists have died from head injuries in each of the last 20 years. [R] [144820]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  I have been asked to reply.

  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.
  264W
  Letter from Karen Dunnell to Mr. Richard Page, dated 17 January 2001:
  The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your recent question on the number of cyclists who have died from head injuries in each of the last 20 years (144820). I am replying in his absence.
  The information requested is provided in the attached table.

  Number of cyclist deaths1 due to head injuries2 in England and Wales, 1979–1999

  Year

  Number of deaths

  1979

  177

  1980

  169

  1981

  103

  1982

  157

  1983

  160

  1984

  186

  1985

  154

  1986

  148

  1987

  156

  1988

  131

  1989

  132

  1990

  127

  1991

  120

  1992

  98

  1993

  89

  1994

  86

  1995

  127

  1996

  108

  1997

  97

  1998

  77

  1999

  92

  1 Cyclist deaths are classified according to the International Classification of disease, ninth edition, and are selected using ICD9 codes E810–E825, E800–E807, E8261.

  2 Head injuries have been selected using ICD9 codes for secondary cause of death N800–N804, N850–N854, N870–N873.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Ruminant Animal Feed
  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what estimate he has made of the quantity of ruminant meat and bonemeal exported from the United Kingdom between 18 July 1988 and 20 March 1996; [142893]

  (2) what meat and bonemeal has been exported from the United Kingdom since 20 March 1996. [142895]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 20 December 2000]: Ruminant meat and bonemeal is not specifically identified in the official overseas trade statistics. The nearest equivalent is:
  Flours, meals and pellets, of meat or meat offal (including tankage), unfit for human consumption; greaves
  which includes poultry-based material. It is not possible to provide the actual quantity of MBM exported during the periods in question as these figures can not be extracted from the totals which include exports of other materials including non-MBM poultry-based products such as feathermeal.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what official advice the Government have received on the impact of fishmeal used in ruminant animal feed in the United Kingdom on human or animal health. [144343]
  265W
  Mr. Nick Brown
  [holding answer 8 January 2001]: Recent independent advice is that fishmeal is a desirable ingredient in high quality ewe rations because of its blend of proteins, amino and fatty acids, although there are examples of such rations where fishmeal is not included. In its recent review of BSE controls, the Food Standards Agency has not identified fishmeal as posing a risk to human health.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment the Government have made of the impact of the EU ban on fishmeal in ruminant animal feed on conventional and organic livestock farming in Britain. [144329]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  [holding answer 8 January 2001]: This issue will be considered in light of responses to the consultation exercise on the wider EU feed ban which issued on 12 January.

  French Beef
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he requested advice from the Food Standards Agency concerning the safety of French beef imported into the United Kingdom; what advice he has received; and if he will publish it. [144335]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  [holding answer 8 January 2001]: In response to requests from my Department and elsewhere, last autumn the FSA advised that there is no scientific justification for a ban on imports of legally sold French beef in view of the levels of incidence of BSE in France, the specified risk material controls and the ban on the sale of over-thirty-months-old beef. The agency regularly publishes information on its internet site—http://www.foodstandards.gov.uk/.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has made of the quantity of beef produced from French cattle imported into Britain from other EU countries in the last 12 months. [144319]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  [holding answer 8 January 2001]: Following the introduction of the single market, official overseas trade statistics on intra-Community trade are compiled from the Intrastat Survey of traders run by HM Customs and Excise.

  While all traders provide the country of despatch of imports into the UK, the country of origin is provided only on a voluntary basis by a minority of traders.

  As a consequence, we do not have reliable statistical information on the quantity of French beef imported from other member states.

  Cod Quota
  Mr. Alan Campbell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proportion of its cod quota was caught by the UK fleet in the North Sea in 2000. [145576]

  Mr. Morley
  The UK's final cod quota in the North Sea for 2000 was 34,149 tonnes. Total landings by UK vessels, as known to Departments at 11 January 2001, was 27,131 tonnes. This represents an uptake of 79.4 per cent.

  Common Fisheries Policy
  Mr. Alan Campbell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps are being taken to improve regional management of the Common Fisheries Policy. [145573]

  Mr. Morley
  We consider regional management to be a priority issue to be addressed as part of the review of the common fisheries policy. The Irish Sea cod recovery programme represents a significant step forward in bringing together fishermen, managers and scientists from the member states concerned to help develop the programme and review its operation. We are following a similar approach for the North Sea cod recovery programme. This indicates the direction in which we want the common fisheries policy to develop.

  Fishing Management
  Mr. Alan Campbell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what discussions he has had with representatives of the regional development agencies regarding the improvement of regional management of fishing. [145572]

  Mr. Morley
  We plan to consult fully with all interested parties, including the regional development agencies, on the forthcoming review of the common fisheries policy, including options to improve its regional dimension.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Immigration and Nationality Directorate
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make it his policy to require all correspondence sent to IND to be acknowledged. [145457]

  Mrs. Roche
  The Home Office's service delivery agreement for 2001–04, which commits all Home Office directorates, including the Immigration and Nationality Directorate (IND), to replying to 95 per cent. of public correspondence within 20 working days by the end of 2001–02, does not require that such correspondence also be acknowledged. However, it is the policy of IND's integrated casework directorate to acknowledge the receipt of applications and other casework-related correspondence where an acknowledgement is requested.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many files under the control of IND went missing in each of the last five years; and how many of these subsequently have been found. [145458]

  Mrs. Roche
  The information is not available in the format requested. At present, out of a total file holding of approximately 4.1 million, 15,855—or less than 0.4 per cent.—are recorded as lost. 7,507 of these have become lost since 1 January 1996 and have not yet come to light.

  Many of the files recorded as lost have had new sub-files created on which action has continued.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to improve the response times of IND to correspondence. [145459]
  267W
  Mrs. Roche
  The Home Office's published service delivery agreement for 2001–04 commits all Home Office Directorates, including the immigration and nationality directorate (IND), to replying to 95 per cent. of public correspondence within 20 working days and 95 per cent. of ministerial correspondence within 15 working days by the end of 2001–02. Improving performance against published targets for dealing with correspondence will be a key aim of the customer communications foundation project, which will form part of the SIRIUS programme for modernising business processes across the Home Office, including IND.

  IND has established two dedicated ministerial correspondence units within its integrated casework directorate in order to improve the service provided to MPs on casework-related correspondence.

  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress has been made in the introduction of the casework programme of the Immigration and Nationality Directorate; and if he will make a statement. [144494]

  Mrs. Roche
  I refer my hon. friend to the first part of my answer to his question on 23 November 2000,Official Report, column 293W.

  Human Rights Act
  Sir Sydney Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about the guidance his Department issues to Government Departments on the effects of the Human Rights Act 1998. [144196]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The principal published guidance is:Guidance for Departments (developed by the Cabinet Office Constitution Secretariat);
  Core Guidance for Public Authorities (produced by the Human Rights Task Force); and
  Putting Rights Into Public Service (produced by the Human Rights Task Force).

  All this material has been made widely available in printed and electronic form and is accessible, along with the other guidance on the Human Rights Act, via the Home Office website. Copies have been placed in the Library.

  Probation Service
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) probation officers and (b) probation service officers retired, per service, in each of the last five years for which figures are available. [145699]

  Mr. Boateng
  The centrally available information is as follows:

  Probation officers retired each year

  Service

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  20001

  Avon

  2

  2

  3

  4

  1

  Bedfordshire

  3

  3

  1

  1

  —

  Berkshire

  3

  1

  8

  —

  —

  Cambridgeshire

  2

  1

  5

  2

  2

  Cheshire

  6

  —

  —

  —

  —

  268W

  Probation officers retired each year

  Service

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  20001

  Cornwall

  3

  —

  —

  2

  —

  Cumbria

  3

  2

  4

  2

  —

  Derbyshire

  7

  3

  2

  1

  —

  Devon

  6

  2

  3

  5

  4

  Dorset

  4

  —

  2

  1

  1

  Durham

  1

  2

  1

  2

  —

  Essex

  5

  3

  3

  3

  1

  Gloucestershire

  2

  2

  1

  1

  —

  Hampshire

  8

  4

  4

  —

  Hereford and Worcester

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Hertfordshire

  5

  —

  1

  3

  1

  Humberside

  4

  6

  5

  —

  2

  Kent

  11

  2

  5

  3

  1

  Lancashire

  9

  5

  3

  4

  2

  Leicestershire

  1

  —

  1

  —

  1

  Lincolnshire

  1

  —

  1

  2

  1

  Greater Manchester

  6

  6

  4

  6

  —

  Merseyside

  14

  4

  8

  4

  1

  Norfolk

  3

  2

  3

  2

  1

  Northamptonshire

  2

  1

  2

  2

  —

  Northumbria

  6

  3

  1

  2

  2

  Nottinghamshire

  2

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Oxford/Buckinghamshire

  5

  2

  5

  7

  2

  Shropshire

  —

  —

  1

  2

  —

  Somerset

  2

  1

  —

  1

  —

  Staffordshire

  5

  8

  5

  2

  3

  Suffolk

  2

  1

  5

  3

  —

  Surrey

  3

  —

  1

  1

  —

  East Sussex

  1

  1

  —

  —

  1

  West Sussex

  1

  —

  1

  3

  —

  Teesside

  3

  1

  3

  —

  2

  Warwickshire

  4

  —

  —

  2

  2

  West Midlands

  24

  5

  16

  9

  3

  Wiltshire

  2

  1

  1

  —

  —

  North Yorkshire

  2

  4

  —

  1

  —

  South Yorkshire

  5

  5

  3

  7

  3

  West Yorkshire

  8

  1

  14

  10

  2

  Inner London

  16

  18

  17

  8

  6

  North East London

  2

  —

  4

  2

  2

  South East London

  1

  —

  2

  1

  —

  South West London

  1

  1

  1

  —

  —

  Middlesex

  12

  3

  3

  3

  —

  Dyfed

  —

  1

  4

  4

  —

  Gwent

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  North Wales

  3

  —

  1

  2

  —

  Powys

  —

  —

  3

  —

  —

  South Glamorgan

  1

  —

  7

  —

  —

  Mid Glamorgan

  1

  —

  —

  —

  2

  West Glamorgan

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  England and Wales

  223

  107

  170

  122

  50

  1 January-June

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) probation officers and (b) probation staff (i) were recruited, (ii) retired, (iii) resigned and (iv) were dismissed, in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [145701]

  Mr. Boateng
  The available information is as follows:

  Probation officers

  Number of staff

  England and Wales

  Recruited1

  Retired

  1996

  277

  223

  1997

  337

  107

  1998

  561

  170

  1999

  722

  122

  269W

  Probation officers

  Number of staff

  England and Wales

  Recruited1

  Retired

  20002

  3—

  50

  1 Recruited

  2 January-June

  3 Not available

  Note:

  Information is not collected centrally on the categories 'dismissed' or 'resigned', nor is any information available centrally on recruitment etc. for probation staff as a whole.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the total case load undertaken by probation services was and what the average case load per probation officer was in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [145698]

  Mr. Boateng
  The information is as follows:

  Case load and case load per officer

  Number of persons

  England and Wales

  Total case load (Thousand)1

  Case load per officer2

  1995

  161

  25.0

  1996

  171

  27.7

  1997

  185

  31.1

  1998

  204

  34.4

  1999

  218

  36.6

  1 At 31 December

  2 Per maingrade probation officer (whole-time equivalent of maingrade probation officers, excluding temporary and trainee, on fieldwork duties at 31 December). Excludes community service orders.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many full-time probation officers were in post(a) in each of the last five years and (b) at the latest date for which figures are available. [145700]

  Mr. Boateng
  The information requested is as follows:

  Full-time probation officers in post at 31 December (30 June)1

  England and Wales

  Number

  19951

  6,994

  19961

  6,817

  19971

  6,631

  19981

  6,624

  19991

  6,920

  20002

  6,772

  1 Includes temporary and trainee staff. The 1995 figure includes Oxfordshire and Buckinghamshire as at 30 June 1995.

  2 December

  3 June

  Prison Population
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the current prison population in England and Wales is; what the(a) maximum operational capacity and (b) certified normal accommodation is; and if he will make a statement. [145848]

  Mr. Boateng
  [holding answer 16 January 2001]: The prison population in England and Wales on 12 January 2001 was 62,386. On the same date, the total in-use certified normal accommodation was 63,285 and the total certified operational capacity was 70,883.

  Prison Suicides
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many incidents of suicide were recorded in prison establishments in England and Wales from April 2000 to date; and if he will make a statement. [145850]

  Mr. Boateng
  [holding answer 16 January 2001]: There have been 63 self-inflicted deaths in prisons since 1 April 2000 (including two this year). The Prison Service is reconsidering with Ministers its suicide/self-harm strategy and an announcement will be made in February.

  Immigration Detainees
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department as what category of inmate people detained in prison for immigration irregularities will be held; and if he will make a statement. [145163]

  Mr. Boateng
  Persons who are detained in prison by reason only of a recommendation for deportation are treated as unconvicted prisoners for the purpose of prison management and, like unconvicted prisoners, are categorised category U (unclassified).

  The majority of detainees are held in category B establishments although some are detained in category C prisons. They are not required to mix with unconvicted prisoners.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department from what prison budget funding is provided for the cost of detaining people in prison for immigration reasons. [145164]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Prison Service baseline funding includes provision to cover the cost of providing around 500 places for immigration detainees. For operational reasons, these are accommodated principally at Rochester and Lindholme prisons and Haslar holding centre, but local prison places are also used. There is no separately identified budget for this. The Prison Service has agreed to provide accommodation for up to a further 500 places until the end of 2001 from within existing capacity.

  Escaped Prisoners
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many escaped prison inmates there are, indicating(a) from which prison they escaped and (b) on what dates. [144906]

  Mr. Boateng
  There are currently seven prisoners at large having escaped from prisons since January 1998. The details can be found in the table. Information from previous years can be provided only at disproportionate cost.
  271W

  Prison

  Date of escape

  Littlehey

  30 December 1998

  Wormwood Scrubs

  31 January 1999

  Littlehey

  26 November 1999

  Blantyre House

  30 August 2000

  Brinsford

  29 December 2000

  Down view

  5 January 2001

  Kirklevington

  10 January 2001

  Police Manpower (Merseyside)
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what his estimate is of the net effect of his Department's recent grant to Merseyside police under the organised crime initiative on police numbers in the county. [144941]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Merseyside police will receive £1,020,000 under the targeted policing initiative, part of the crime reduction programme, to buy technical equipment to confront and tackle criminal networks across the county. Merseyside police inform me that the money will improve the capability and resilience of existing internal structures and will bring benefits in terms of crime reduction.

  Early Retirement
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many members of the south-east regional crime squad retired on grounds of ill health between 1995 and 2000. [145242]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Data are not collected centrally on ill-health retirements of officers on central service. However, I understand that one member of the south-east regional crime squad retired on grounds of ill-health between 1995 and 2000.

  The south-east regional crime squad became part of the national crime squad (NCS) on 1 April 1998. Officers are seconded to NCS from their home force. NCS may return an officer to a force on medical grounds, but the decision on whether or not to retire on medical grounds lies solely with the home force.

  Prisoner Releases
  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners were released on temporary licence(a) in total and (b) broken down by type of licence, in 2000. [144951]

  Mr. Boateng
  There were 244,000 releases on temporary licence in 2000. This includes prisoners who were released on more than one occasion. The total is broken down as follows:

  Number

  Local visits

  44,100

  Resettlement licence

  66,100

  Facility licence

  125,700

  Compassionate release

  8,100

  Total

  244,000

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many of those asylum seekers processed at the Oakington detention centre have been denied entry to the UK; and how many of those refused entry have been removed from the UK. [144916]

  Mrs. Roche
  As at 5 January 2001, 2,572 asylum seekers whose cases have been processed at Oakington have had an initial decision refusing asylum and 343 have so far been removed from the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum vouchers were issued in each week of December 2000. [145769]

  Mrs. Roche
  The number of vouchers issued in each week of December 2000 is given in the following table:

  Week commencing

  Number of vouchers issued

  4 December 2000

  273,831

  11 December 2000

  322,125

  18 December 2000

  345,186

  25 December 2000

  325,659

  Drug Misuse (Prisons)
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 10 January 2000,Official Report, column 573W, if he will list the prisons where (a) he and (b) the governors are aware of an obviously significant level of dealing in unlawful drugs; and if he will review the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 to provide a valid defence to (i) prison governors and (ii) others in a relevant management position against charges under section 8. [145569]

  Mr. Boateng
  Covert activity such as drug trafficking is by nature very difficult to quantify. All prisons are required to have in place a robust and proportionate drug strategy to tackle both the supply and demand for drugs. Prisons act firmly whenever there is evidence of drug trafficking.

  Section 8 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 makes it an offence for an occupier or person concerned in the management of any premises knowingly to permit certain activities to take place there, including the supply of a controlled drug.

  The courts have made it clear that this means that those in a management position who are aware of drug dealing on their premises must take all reasonable steps to stop it. The decision on what is "reasonable" is for a jury to decide, in all the circumstances and taking into account the level of the defendant's knowledge of the drug dealing taking place and the steps available to him or her to stop it. I am satisfied therefore that the law already allows an appropriate and valid defence.

  Prostitution
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the age of the youngest person taken into custody by the Metropolitan police for prostitution was in the last 12 months. [145427]
  273W
  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The youngest person to be taken into custody by the Metropolitan police in the last 12 months because of suspected involvement in prostitution was 12 years of age. She was taken into protective custody and, in accordance with the joint Home Office and Department of Health guidance "Safeguarding Children Involved in Prostitution", a referral was made to the Social Services Department.

  Prison Officers
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prison officers are suspended from duty at each prison in England and Wales. [145762]

  Mr. Boateng
  The table provides the information requested.

  Suspended prison officers in England and Wales by prison as at 15 January 2001

  Prison

  Number

  Birmingham

  1

  Bristol

  1

  Brixton

  1

  Brockhill

  1

  Bullingdon

  1

  Bullwood Hall

  1

  Canterbury

  1

  Durham

  1

  Eastwood Park

  1

  Elmley

  5

  Erlestoke

  3

  Feltham

  3

  Frankland

  1

  Full Sutton

  1

  Gloucester

  1

  Grendon and Spring Hill

  1

  Haverigg

  1

  High Down

  3

  Hindley

  1

  Huntercombe

  1

  Lancaster Castle

  1

  Littlehey

  1

  Liverpool

  1

  Long Lartin

  1

  Lowdham Grange

  1

  Northallerton

  1

  Norwich

  1

  Nottingham

  1

  Onley

  2

  Parkhurst

  1

  Pentonville

  2

  Portland

  7

  Preston

  2

  Send

  2

  Stafford

  1

  Stocken

  1

  Stoke Heath

  1

  Swaleside

  1

  The Mount

  1

  The Verne

  1

  Wakefield

  2

  Wandsworth

  5

  Whitemoor

  2

  Woodhill

  2

  Wormwood Scrubs

  28

  Total

  99

  Public Enquiry Office
  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what facilities the public enquiry office of the Immigration and Nationality Directorate offers private solicitors for dealing with immigration and asylum applications; how many practices are offered this facility; and what criteria they must meet. [145529]

  Mrs. Roche
  The Public Enquiry Office (PEO) does not deal with asylum applications. Applications for asylum are dealt with in the asylum screening unit where legal representatives may accompany applicants.

  The PEO deals with personal callers wishing to make straightforward non-asylum applications for leave to remain in the United Kingdom. The PEO also offers a postal service for legal representatives for urgent straightforward applications for leave to remain. These applications are dealt with by return of post. Any representative can apply for inclusion in this service. The number of representatives currently using this service is 289, which represents a possible total of 309 applications each week.

  Emergency Calls (Mobile Telephones)
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department(a) how many and (b) what proportion, of 999 calls to the Metropolitan police were made from mobile telephones in each of the last five years; and what the proportion of serious calls was from (i) mobile and (ii) other telephones in the same period. [145344]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  [holding answer 15 January 2001]: The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis informs me that the information relating to the number and proportion of 999 calls attributable to mobile phones in each of the last five years cannot be provided in the time available. I will write to my right hon. Friend when it becomes available. 999 calls made to the Metropolitan police are not categorised as serious or non-serious.

  Police Pay and Conditions
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to introduce local determination of police pay and conditions. [145551]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  [holding answer 15 January 2001]: There are no present plans to introduce local determination of police pay and conditions.

  The police negotiating board is currently looking at whether there should be an allowance for officers in forces outside of London. I await any recommendation it may make on this or any other issue in relation to police pay and allowances.

  Police Numbers
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what his projections are for total police numbers at(a) March 2001 and (b) March 2002. [145558]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  [holding answer 15 January 2001]: Projecting police numbers is difficult. Apart from special arrangements like the crime fighting fund (CFF)—where money is provided specifically for additional recruitment—Ministers have no control over local

  275W
  decisions on the mix of officer strength and other resources that police authorities and chief constables may consider best for their police forces.

  Through the CFF, we are providing new money—£454 million over the three years 2000–03—to ensure that there is a step change in the number of officers in the police service. Assuming forces' current projections for recruitment and wastage hold good, police numbers should reach 126,000 by March 2001, and 128,000 by March 2002. There may be some slippage, but the aim is to ensure a significant change in the number.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent estimates he has received from each police force for the three years commencing in April

  Police officer projected wastage 2000–03

  (a) Projected wastage in terms of losses to each force and the service

  Projected transfers

  Force

  2000–01

  2000–02

  2000–03

  Total

  2000–01

  2000–02

  2000–03

  Total

  Avon and Somerset

  115

  111

  111

  337

  5

  10

  10

  26

  Bedfordshire

  45

  49

  57

  151

  9

  4

  5

  18

  Cambridgeshire

  63

  62

  57

  182

  5

  5

  5

  15

  Cheshire

  78

  90

  102

  270

  6

  6

  6

  18

  City of London

  40

  39

  39

  118

  14

  13

  13

  40

  Cleveland

  53

  58

  53

  164

  6

  6

  6

  18

  Cumbria

  57

  57

  57

  171

  6

  6

  6

  18

  Derbyshire

  73

  74

  73

  220

  4

  3

  3

  10

  Devon and Cornwall

  132

  84

  96

  312

  6

  4

  4

  14

  Dorset

  81

  72

  61

  214

  1

  1

  1

  3

  Durharn

  49

  56

  54

  159

  5

  5

  5

  15

  Dyfed-Powys

  40

  42

  40

  122

  4

  4

  4

  12

  Essex

  114

  115

  117

  346

  8

  8

  8

  24

  Gloucestershire

  36

  50

  50

  136

  2

  2

  2

  6

  Greater Manchester

  278

  279

  257

  814

  15

  15

  15

  45

  Gwent

  59

  51

  54

  164

  3

  3

  3

  9

  Hampshire

  150

  152

  170

  472

  15

  15

  15

  45

  Hertfordshire

  93

  105

  95

  293

  21

  23

  21

  65

  Humberside

  89

  94

  80

  263

  6

  6

  6

  18

  Kent

  150

  141

  145

  436

  20

  19

  19

  58

  Lancashire

  102

  100

  116

  318

  2

  2

  2

  6

  Leicestershire

  75

  83

  94

  252

  9

  9

  9

  27

  Lincolnshire

  63

  63

  52

  178

  3

  3

  3

  9

  Merseyside

  145

  155

  165

  465

  15

  15

  15

  45

  Metropolitan

  11,270

  11,454

  1,541

  4,265

  200

  200

  150

  550

  Norfolk

  53

  63

  62

  178

  3

  3

  3

  9

  North Wales

  59

  59

  59

  177

  3

  3

  3

  9

  North Yorkshire

  56

  58

  59

  173

  6

  5

  5

  16

  Northamptonshire

  43

  54

  58

  155

  3

  3

  3

  9

  Northumbria

  124

  124

  118

  366

  13

  10

  13

  36

  Nottinghamshire

  78

  78

  78

  234

  6

  6

  6

  18

  South Wales

  152

  152

  152

  456

  4

  4

  4

  12

  South Yorkshire

  102

  102

  99

  303

  11

  11

  11

  33

  Staffordshire

  81

  81

  81

  243

  8

  8

  8

  24

  Suffolk

  54

  52

  55

  161

  3

  2

  5

  10

  Surrey

  142

  242

  105

  489

  25

  20

  25

  70

  Sussex

  185

  185

  185

  555

  15

  15

  15

  45

  Thames Valley

  164

  181

  195

  540

  25

  25

  25

  75

  Warwickshire

  46

  49

  47

  142

  5

  5

  5

  15

  West Mercia

  104

  94

  94

  292

  6

  6

  6

  18

  West Midlands

  312

  312

  312

  936

  43

  43

  43

  129

  West Yorkshire

  190

  209

  197

  596

  10

  11

  11

  32

  Wiltshire

  41

  48

  48

  137

  4

  4

  4

  12

  Total

  5,436

  5,779

  5.740

  16,955

  583

  571

  531

  1,685

  1 Wastage figures for MPS assume that officers currently seconded to county forces following 1 April 2000 boundary changes will return to the force during 2000–01 and 2001–02.

  276W
  2000 of (a) wastage in terms of losses to each force and the police service as a whole and (b) projected transfers between forces. [145556]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  [holding answer 15 January 2001]: In their bids for a share of the recruitment scheme of the crime fighting fund made in January 2000, forces provided information on their projected wastage over the following three years. The Metropolitan police service (MPS) has subsequently provided revised figures for total wastage, but not for transfers from the force.

  The table shows the estimates forces have given for (a) wastage in terms of losses to each force and the Police Service as a whole; and (b) projected transfers (i.e. transfers from each force into another), for the three years commencing April 2000.

  Police Dogs
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) dog handlers and (b) dogs were in the police service in (i) 1997, (ii) 1998, (iii) 1999 and (iv) 2000. [145546]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  [holding answer 15 January 2001]: This information is not held centrally.

  The Association of Chief Police Officers police dogs sub-committee has informed me that this information was not collected in 1997 and 1999.

  The numbers for 1998 and 2000 are:

  Dog handlers

  Dogs

  1998

  1,996

  2,447

  2000

  1,743

  2,431

  Police Constables
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) police constables and (b) special constables in the police service in England and Wales there were on 31 March for each year since 1990; and if he will list (a) the figures for 30 September 2000 and (b) his projected figures for 31 March 2001. [145562]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  [holding answer 15 January 2001]: The table sets out overall constable numbers since 1990 which includes officers on secondment to the national crime squad, the national criminal intelligence service and central services. Data on the number of special constables have been centrally collected on a regular basis only from September 1995.

  We have no projections from forces on the number of constables they are likely to have at the end of March 2001. As part of the bidding process for funding from the crime fighting fund (CFF), forces were asked to provide their projections of appointments on probation (ie new recruits to the force and the police service) and for their projections of wastage (all ranks) excluding transfers between forces. These show that forces hope to recruit about 7,000 new recruits in the current year. This number includes the officers to be funded by the CFF. All of these will enter the service in the rank of constable. But, as we do not have a breakdown of projected wastage by rank, no projection can be made of total constable numbers on 31 March 2001.

  Assuming forces' current projections of recruitment and wastage hold good, police numbers (all ranks) should reach 126,000 by 31 March 2001.

  The special constabulary is a volunteer service and no projections on its likely strength have been sought.

  Constable and special constable numbers since 1990

  Year (as at 31 March)

  Constables

  Special constables

  1990

  95,167

  n/a

  1991

  95,609

  n/a

  1992

  95,662

  n/a

  1993

  96,591

  n/a

  1994

  97,010

  n/a

  1995

  97,107

  n/a

  1996

  97,672

  19,775

  1997

  98,132

  19,874

  278W

  Constable and special constable numbers since 1990

  Year (as at 31 March)

  Constables

  Special constables

  1998

  98,312

  18,256

  1999

  98,520

  16,484

  2000

  95,917

  14,347

  30 September 2000

  96,499

  13,528

  North Wales Police
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many racially motivated crimes were committed in the North Wales police area in(a) 1999, (b) 1994 and (c) 1997. [145392]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Information recorded centrally shows that the number of racially motivated incidents recorded by the police in North Wales for 1994–95 was three, for 1997–98 was 12 and for 1998–99 was 36. Information for 1999–2000 will be published on 18 January 2001 in "Statistics on Race and the Criminal Justice System", a copy of which will be placed in the Library. These are incidents recorded either under the Association of Chief Police Officers' definition of a racial incident:any incident in which it appears to the reporting or investigating officer that the complaint involves an element of racial motivation: or any incident which includes an allegation of racial motivation made by any person.
  which applied until February 1999 or under the new simplified definition of a racist incident proposed by the Lawrence Inquiry which was adopted at that time:
  any incident which is perceived to be racist by the victim or any other person.

  Incidents included here are therefore wider than the normal definition of a crime in the crime statistics and include low level harassment.

WALES

  Legislation
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he has discussed with the Welsh Cabinet the possibility of a fast-track procedure for Welsh legislation. [144068]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I regularly discuss a wide range of issues with the First Secretary, including the progress through Parliament of primary legislation affecting Wales.

  The current procedure for progressing Welsh legislation through Parliament since the establishment of the National Assembly is working very well and I see no need for change at present. There are already procedural options for dealing with Welsh-only primary legislation and each piece of legislation will be considered on its merits.

  Child Detention
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Walse (1) how many children under 16 years of age are detained at He Majesty's pleasure in Wales; [145884]

  (2) how many children aged 16 and 17 years are detained at He Majesty's pleasure in Wales. [145883]

  Mr. Boateng
  [holding answer 16 January 2001]: I have been asked to reply.
  279W
  No child or young person under the age of 18 is currently detained at Her Majesty's pleasure in Wales.

  Child Statistics
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many children are ordinarily resident in Wales. [145885]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  Based on the Registrar General's mid-year estimate, there were, in Wales, 596,800 persons under the age of 16 in 1999.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Social Fund
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many(a) successful and (b) unsuccessful applications were made to the Social Fund in each of the last three years; and of (a) how many resulted in crisis loans in (i) Inverclyde and (ii) Scotland. [144499]

  Angela Eagle
  The administration of the Social Fund is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency. She will write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Alexis Cleveland to Dr. Norman A. Godman, dated 17 January 2001:
  The Parliamentary Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to respond to your recent Parliamentary Question asking how many (a) successful and (b) unsuccessful applications were made to the Social Fund in each of the last three years; and of (a) how many resulted in crisis loans in (i) Inverclyde and (ii) Scotland.
  The information is not available in the format requested. Social Fund data is collated by Benefits Agency District Office areas rather than by constituency areas. The constituency of Inverclyde is included within the Clyde Coast and Renfrew District Office area.
  The attached appendix shows details of the numbers of Budgeting Loans, Community Care Grants and Crisis Loans awarded and refused for the last three years for Scotland and the District Office Area for Clyde Coast and Renfrew.
  The data provided for the number of Crisis. Loans awarded, cannot be broken down to identify Crisis Loans awarded due to the result of the refusal of another loan from the Social Fund.
  Figures for 2000–01 are for the period April 2000 to December 2000 only as this is the latest available data.
  I hope this reply is helpful.

  Appendix: Community Care Grants

  Scotland

  Clyde Coast and Renfrew

  1997–98

  Awarded

  44,892

  3,990

  Refused

  142,187

  11,828

  1998–99

  Awarded

  42,589

  4,052

  Refused

  141,529

  11,867

  1999–2000

  Awarded

  44,421

  4,151

  Refused

  69,723

  5,229

  2000–011

  Awarded

  34,619

  3,059

  Refused

  43,245

  3,189

  1 The data are for the period April 2000 to December 2000

  280W

  Budgeting loans

  Scotland

  Clyde Coast and Renfrew

  1997–98

  Awarded

  128,660

  9,389

  Refused

  82,323

  7,833

  1998–99

  Awarded

  132,886

  9,749

  Refused

  75,283

  7,319

  1999–2000

  Awarded

  144,057

  12,771

  Refused

  94,215

  8,163

  2000–011

  Awarded

  130,816

  9,445

  Refused

  53,786

  5,041

  1 The data are for the period April 2000 to December 2000

  Crisis loans

  Scotland

  Clyde Coast and Renfrew

  1997–98

  Awarded

  150,333

  22,050

  Refused

  69,391

  8,202

  1998–99

  Awarded

  178,400

  28,794

  Refused

  78,489

  13,069

  1999–2000

  Awarded

  201,071

  31,903

  Refused

  114,737

  17,525

  2000–011

  Awarded

  141,973

  23,631

  Refused

  73,698

  10,913

  1 The data are for the period April 2000 to December 2000

  Disability Benefits (Scotland)
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people with disabilities in Scotland are claiming state benefits. [145145]

  Mr. Bayley
  Information is not available in the form requested. Such information as is available is as follows. At May 2000, about 623,000 people (across all age groups) in Scotland were receiving one or more of the following benefits: Attendance Allowance; Disability Living Allowance; Severe Disablement Allowance or Incapacity Benefit including 'credits only' cases; Income Support or income-based Jobseeker's Allowance with a disability-related premium; Retirement Pension with an invalidity addition or a reduction.

  Travel Allowance
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what factors determined the cost limit of 80p on the travel allowance for claimants attending benefit offices; and what plans he has to review the limit. [143285]

  Mr. Bayley
  If customers are required to attend a benefit office in connection with their claim, their reasonable travelling expenses can be reimbursed. This is not limited to 80p.

  Winter Fuel Payments
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many Winter Fuel Payments were paid in each of the last two years in(a) the parliamentary constituency of Greenock and Inverclyde and (b) Scotland. [144500]

  Mr. Rooker
  Last winter (1999–2000) around 900,000 Winter Fuel Payments were made in Scotland, of which 11,944 were made to those entitled in the parliamentary constituency of Greenock and Inverclyde.

  Latest information for this winter shows that, of around 1 million payments made in Scotland, 12,881 have been in Greenock and Inverclyde.

  Figures cannot be precise because the scheme has been extended to make payments to those entitled from the age of 60—some of whom need to claim. Claims are still being received.

  Pensions (Scotland)
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people of pension age in Scotland are claiming the state pension. [145144]

  Mr. Rooker
  At 31 March 2000, there were 900,700 pensioners residing in Scotland in receipt of a state pension.

  Source:

  5 per cent. sample from the Pension Strategy Computer System at 31 March 2000.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he plans to answer Mr. Steven Burton's letter of 28 November 2000. [145880]

  Benefits Agency information by Scottish district as at 31 December 2000

  District

  Staff in post1

  Staff costs2 (£ million)

  Non-staff costs2 (£ million)

  Argyll and West

  381

  4.78

  2.04

  Clyde Coast and Renfrew

  448

  6.05

  2.09

  Glasgow East

  320

  4.09

  1.66

  Glasgow North

  508

  6.40

  2.67

  Glasgow South

  615

  7.60

  2.60

  Highlands and Islands

  329

  4.06

  1.67

  South West Scotland

  518

  6.44

  2.38

  East Edinburgh and Borders

  444

  5.43

  0.42

  Lothian West and North Edinburgh

  371

  4.51

  0.43

  Fife

  304

  3.95

  0.31

  Tayside

  381

  4.74

  0.45

  Grampian and Shetland

  289

  3.60

  0.35

  Lanarkshire

  521

  6.68

  0.40

  Forth Valley

  256

  3.28

  0.34

  Area Directorate Support

  119

  2.18

  17.20

  Central Support Unit Scotland

  82

  1.06

  0.71

  Operational Support Satellite Unit

  19

  0.25

  0.20

  Benefit Fraud Investigation Service

  492

  7.58

  0.65

  Office Support Services

  345

  3.64

  1.08

  1 Rounded to nearest whole number

  2 Rounded to nearest £10,000

  Notes:

  1. Information excludes Northgate, Glasgow which provides support only to London officers

  2. Area Directorates Support expenditure includes Out of hours Service, internal Security, PRIME, IMAPACT and Accommodation and Office Service

  3. Expenditure costs are year to date as at 31 December 2000
  282W
  Angela Eagle
  A reply to Mr. Stephen Burton's letter was sent on 12 January.

  Agency Staff (Scotland)
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many staff there are at the(a) Independent Tribunal Service office in Glasgow, (b) Information Technology Services Agency offices in Livingstone, (c) Child Support Agency offices in Falkirk and (d) Benefits Agency in the (i) South East of Scotland, (ii) South West of Scotland. (iii) West of Scotland, (iv) Central Scotland, (v) North East Scotland and (vi) the Highlands and Islands of Scotland; and what the (A) wage and (B) running costs of each are in the current financial year. [145148]

  Angela Eagle
  The Independent Tribunal Service is now known as the Appeals Service Agency. At present there are 99 full or part-time staff employed by the Appeals Service Agency in Glasgow. Salary costs in the current financial year to 31 December 2000 were £1.75 million. Running costs for the same period were £2.36 million.

  The Information Technology Service Agency (ITSA) no longer exists.

  The Child Support Agency currently employs 1,180 full or part-time staff at Falkirk. Information on wages and running costs is not available as the Scotland and North East Business Unit, which has its main base in Falkirk, also has staff located in North East England. Budgets are allocated to the business unit as a whole and it is therefore not possible to break down the wage and running costs associated with the Falkirk site.

  The information requested on the Benefits Agency is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is set out in the table.

  Agency Property (Scotland)
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many personal computers, printers, faxes and vehicles are based at the(a) Independent Tribunal Service office in Glasgow, (b) Information Technology Services Agency in Livingstone and (c) Benefits Agency in the (i) South East of Scotland, (ii) South West of Scotland, (iii) West of Scotland, (iv) Central Scotland, (v) North East Scotland and (vi) Highlands and Islands of Scotland and (d) the Child Support Agency in Falkirk. [145149]

  Angela Eagle
  The Independent Tribunal Service is now known as the Appeal Services Agency.

  The Information Technology Services Agency (ITSA) no longer exists.

  The available information for Scotland is in the following table.

  Agency

  PCs

  Printers

  Faxes

  Vehicles

  Appeals Service Agency

  139

  47

  8

  0

  Benefits Agency

  5,020

  1,242

  336

  121

  Child Support Agency

  490

  52

  40

  0

  Note:

  The figures for Benefits Agency are for Scotland as a whole, but exclude Northgate, Glasgow, which provides support to London offices only.

  Disability Living Allowance
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many applications for Disability Living Allowance(a) care component, (b) mobility component and (c) care and mobility components were received in each quarter of the last three years; how many of these were (i) successful, (ii) unsuccessful, (iii) subject to review, (iv) successful at review, (v) unsuccessful at review, (vi) subject to reconsideration, (vii) successful at reconsideration, (viii) unsuccessful at reconsideration, (ix) subject to appeal and (x) successful at appeal; what was the average number of days taken to process applications; and how many decisions had not been reached at the end of each quarter for (A) first claim, (B) review, (C) reconsideration and (D) appeal stages. [144846]

  Mr. Bayley
  Information is not available in the form requested.

CABINET OFFICE

  Anti-drugs Strategy
  Gillian Merron
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what assessment she has made of the impact of the Government's anti-drugs strategy programmes aimed at children. [144205]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  One of our key targets is to reduce the proportion of young people under the age of 25 reporting the use of illegal drugs by 50 per cent. by 2008. To support this objective we have announced plans to increase the amount of spending on education and prevention from £63 million this year to £120 million in 2003–04.
  284W
  There are already encouraging signs of progress. The most recent Ofsted survey shows that in 1999, 93 per cent. of secondary schools and 75 per cent. of primary schools had policies compared to 86 per cent. and 61 per cent. in 1997.

  In addition, other research indicates a levelling off, or even a drop, in the reported use of illegal drugs by young people.

  Angela Smith
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what progress is being made towards achieving the Government's targets on combating drug misuse. [144206]

  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if she will make a statement on cross-departmental progress on reducing drug use. [144218]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  The Anti-Drugs Co-ordinator published his Annual Report for 1999–2000 on 7 November 2000.

  The report shows that we are making progress towards meeting the challenging targets we have set as part our 10-year anti-drugs strategy.

  Most of our annual targets were met in full and we are on track to deliver published targets for 2002.

  My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that all Basildon schools now have a drugs policy in place—indeed, Basildon was the first area of Essex to pilot a programme of focusing school based standards funds and the efforts of the local education authority drugs adviser into one district base, in collaboration with the district drug reference group.

  I am also pleased to report that Basildon enjoys strong crime reduction links, through the implementation of the Essex arrest referral schemes and drug treatment and testing orders.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what account the Government's anti-drugs strategy takes of the drugs trade in Bolivia. [144215]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  In order to achieve our target of halving the availability of Class A drugs by 2008, the Government focus their overseas efforts on those countries which pose the greatest threat to the UK. As Bolivia is not only a producer of coca leaf but of cocaine itself, it is an important part of our drugs strategy.

  We welcome the considerable efforts that the Bolivian Government have made in eradicating illicit coca and we continue to provide support to their counter-drugs efforts. Since April 1997, the UK Government have provided almost £1.2 million worth of counter-drugs assistance to Bolivia. This has included training, equipment and support to alternative development projects.

  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what role the drug action teams are playing in the delivery of the Government's anti-drugs strategy. [144220]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  Drug action teams (DATs) have a crucial role in the delivery of the national drugs strategy. They are the main mechanism for delivery on the ground and work as a local partnership of the agencies involved in tackling drugs including probation, health, education, police and local authorities. All drug action teams are required to plan and deliver an effective programme of activities in line with the national drugs strategy.
  285W
  St. Helens DAT have recently separated from St. Helens and Knowsley DAT. They have developed their links with crime and disorder strategies, have established a needs assessment of young people and reviewed the services to respond to the area of need. There is partnership working between the DAT, the youth offending team and local drugs services. The arrest referral scheme has been established and the DAT are looking to strengthen communication links with community safety and social exclusion units.

  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if she will make a statement on the work of the drug and alcohol action teams. [144221]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply given earlier to my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Watts). As alcohol is not covered by the Government's anti-drug strategy, drug action teams are not required to co-ordinate anti-alcohol activities, although some have chosen to do so. The Department of Health is working on a national strategy to tackle alcohol misuse and a consultation document will be issued shortly. The Department will be implementing the strategy by 2004.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what assessment she has made, as part of the Government's anti-drugs strategy, of the impact on the use of Class 1 drugs that would follow from the decriminalisation of cannabis. [144213]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  The Government's policy towards all illicit drugs is based on the scientific evidence of the harm they cause. It is on the basis of this evidence that cannabis remains a controlled drug.

  While the Government have therefore not made a detailed assessment of the impact of decriminalisation of cannabis on the use of Class A drugs, a number of studies have made it clear that most users of Class A drugs have previously used cannabis as well as tobacco and alcohol, and that early use of cannabis is strongly linked to drugs dependence.

  The Government will continue to evaluate all new research as it becomes available.

  Modernising Government
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if she will make a statement on progress on the modernising government agenda. [144207]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  We are making excellent progress as our report, "Citizens First", shows. My hon. Friend will be aware that in his constituency Thameside NHS trust holds Chartermarks, both for its learning disability and continuing care services—just two examples of the Government's determination to reward and promote excellence in public services.

  We have a clear framework for investment in services, based on the Government's policy goals. We are focusing on the user of public services and setting targets to drive forward change and delivery. We are becoming an e-Government, not for its own sake but to make life easier for people, as UK Online is doing. And we are restoring the value of public service. We are delivering modernisation with a purpose, delivering results that matter and make a difference.

  Regulatory Impact Assessment
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if she will make a statement on the development of the regulatory impact assessment system. [144208]

  Mr. Stringer
  This Government are determined that regulations should not be introduced unless they are really necessary and the benefits justify the costs. A thorough regulatory impact assessment is required for all new regulations that impact on business. Over the last two years, we have introduced a number of initiatives to support and strengthen this process such as the panel for regulatory accountability, a minimum three-month consultation period and a revised assessment of costs and benefits with a greater emphasis on the impact on small businesses.

  Independent Government Agencies
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what steps she is taking to enhance the accountability of operationally independent Government agencies. [144209]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  Within the last 12 months the Cabinet Office has published revised guidance on quinquennial reviews of Executive agencies. This guidance reiterates the need for transparency and accountability both to Parliament and to the public in the review process.

  EU Regulations
  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what plans she has to issue guidelines to Government Departments for the co-ordination of implementation programmes for European Union regulations in 2001. [144210]

  Mr. Stringer
  The "Guide to Better European Regulation" was published in 1999. This brings together guidance on assessing proposals for, negotiating, implementing, monitoring and reviewing EC legislation. I am keeping under review as to when or how it should be revised.

  Commissioner for Public Appointments
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if she will make a statement on the work of the Commissioner for Public Appointments. [144211]

  Mr. Stringer
  The Commissioner for Public Appointments, Dame Rennie Fritchie, regulates ministerial appointments to public bodies within her remit. Her work and advice is highly regarded and respected by the Government.

  Drug Mortality Rates
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how many deaths from illegal drugs there were in 1989; and what the estimated number is for 2001. [144212]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  For the year 1989, the published Home Office Statistical Bulletin reveals some 1,191 deaths due to controlled drugs. This figure includes poisonings, suicides and those dying from AIDS acquired through injecting drug use, as well as the dependent and
  287W
  non-dependent use of controlled drugs. There are no official estimates for the number of drug-related deaths for 2001.

  However, latest figures indicate that there are over 3,000 drug-related deaths annually within the United Kingdom. As part of the Government's 10-year strategy for reducing drugs misuse, we are committed to reducing the number of these tragedies. We have made available the resources to make this possible and will shortly be announcing our response to the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs report "Reducing Drug Related Deaths".

  Social Exclusion Unit
  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what steps she is taking to monitor the impact of the work of the social exclusion unit in relation to tackling poverty. [144214]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  My right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office chairs the ministerial network on social exclusion which chases progress on implementation of the social exclusion unit's existing reports on specific aspects of social exclusion. Previous projects have been on truancy and school exclusion; rough sleeping; teenage pregnancy; new opportunities for 16 to 18-year-olds not in education, employment and training and poor neighbourhoods. These reports have all led to tangible change, both within Government and on the ground.

  The unit underwent an external review in 1999 when its project-based approach and working methods were widely welcomed. The Prime Minister announced to Parliament in December 1999 that the SEU should continue its work and be reviewed again by the end of 2002.

  Current projects

  Indeed, on Monday this week, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and the Regions informed the House of the publication of the unit's latest report which set out the Government's "National Strategy for Neighbourhood Renewal: A New Commitment to Neighbourhood Renewal".

  The new strategy has been developed in a response to previous social exclusion unit reports on the poverty suffered by residents of deprived areas and will be implemented by a new unit, based in DETR.

  The social exclusion unit is currently working on a project to cut rates of reoffending by ex-prisoners and has been asked to report to the Prime Minister by spring 2001.

  Government Machinery
  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what percentage of her time is spent on issues relating to the machinery of Government. [144216]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has overall responsibility for machinery of government issues.

  As Minister for the Cabinet Office, I am responsible for the effective co-ordination and presentation of the Government's policies. This includes responsibilities in the areas of biotechnology; combating drug misuse; overall responsibility for the work of the Cabinet Office; and discharging the day-to-day responsibilities of the Minister for the Civil Service. As Chancellor of the
  288W
  Duchy of Lancaster, I also have responsibility to Her Majesty the Queen for the general administration of the Duchy.

  E-services
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what assessment she has made of progress in achieving the Government's targets in use of information technology within the civil service, with special reference to the provision of forms for the use of the public. [144217]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  The Government continue to make strong progress towards the Prime Minister's target that by 2005 all Government services should be available online.

  We have a good story to tell: for central Government we have identified 451 services to the citizen and to business and already one third of them are available online. Many of these replace simple forms to request information, and some Government forms are now fully downloadable, such as those for the Court service.

  Things you can do online now include:
  ordering and paying for a company's financial returns,
  checking to see if you need hospital treatment,
  find out if it is safe to visit foreign countries,
  fill out a tax form,
  The public can also keep up to date with what is happening in Parliament and contact the Ombudsman online,
  Employees and employers can interactively calculate pay rates and entitlements under the National Minimum Wage regulations with further interactive guides to employment law to follow,
  and get a local weather forecast to help plan your day using your mobile phone (SMS or WAP).

  Much more detail about Government service than I can give here may be found in the reports monitoring progress towards the targets for electronic service. These include details of the innovative approaches that Departments have planned for future services.

  The spring 2000 report has been placed in the Libraries of the House. My Department is preparing the autumn 2000 monitoring report which I will be also placing in the Libraries of the House.

  Online information is available from "things you can do online now" www.e-envoy.gov.uk/online_now.htm

  Dr. George Turner
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what assessment she makes of progress towards Government targets for the use of information and communications technology in transactions with the public. [144222]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  The Government continue to make strong progress towards the Prime Minister's target that by 2005 all Government services should be available online.

  We have a good story to tell: for central Government we have identified 451 services to the citizen and to business and already one third of them are available online
  289W
  Things you can do online now include:
  ordering and payment for a company's financial returns,
  checking to see if you need hospital treatment,
  find out if it is safe to visit foreign countries,
  fill out a tax form,
  the public can also keep up to date with what is happening in Parliament and contact the Ombudsman online,
  employees and employers can interactively calculate pay rates and entitlements under the national minimum wage regulations with further interactive guides to employment law to follow,
  and get a local weather forecast to help plan your day using your mobile phone (SMS or WAP).

  Much more detail about Government service than I can give here may be found in the reports monitoring progress towards the targets for electronic service. These include details of the innovative approaches that Departments have planned for future services.

  The spring 2000 report has been placed in the Libraries of the House. My Department is preparing the autumn 2000 monitoring report which I will be placing in the Libraries of the House.

  Focus 5000 Group
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office who decides which policy initiatives are tested on the Focus 5000 Group. [144219]
  290W
  Mr. Ian McCartney
  I take it that my hon. Friend is referring to the People's Panel. The panel may be used by any Government Department or publicly funded body and it is for them to decide whether to use the panel to test policy initiatives. Five major waves of quantitative research and several qualitative research projects have been carried out using the People's Panel. These have supported a number policy initiatives, for instance, the first wave of research was used to examine attitudes to a wide range of public services and the women's unit commissioned research using the People's Panel as part of a wider programme of consultation with women. Summaries of the research results have been placed in the House Library and published on the internet. I shall send copies to my hon. Friend.

  Magistrates
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if she will make a statement on the age criteria for applying to be a magistrate in Lancashire. [144223]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  My directions for advisory committees on justice of the peace state that I will not generally appoint a candidate under the age of 27 or over the age of 65. This is the same criteria used by the Lord Chancelor in the remainder of England and Wales. In 1998, the age limit was raised to 65 by the Lord Chancellor and the then Chancellor of the Duchy in order to allow more people taking early retirement to apply for the magistracy.

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

NHS Ophthalmic Care: Waiting Lists
Baroness Knight of Collingtree Baroness Knight of Collingtree asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they are taking to cut waiting lists for ophthalmic care in the National Health Service.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): My Lords, cataract operations comprise over 80 per cent of the operations carried out in hospital ophthalmology departments. We have allocated £20 million to modernise cataract services at 60 centres and we have set a target for them to reduce the waiting time from referral to treatment to a maximum of six months by 2003.
Baroness Knight of Collingtree: My Lords, by the Government's own admission some of the longest waiting lists in the NHS are for eye care, so why have they not consulted with those most able to advise them on how to deal with this matter, such as the College of Optometrists? Is the Minister aware of the level of expertise and the ready willingness to help in that college? As regards cataract operations, which the Minister has just mentioned, is the sum of £20 million allocated to deal with that problem to be ring-fenced? Concern has been expressed that the money will be allocated to local health authorities, which will spend it as they wish.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, that money is to be spent specifically on cataract services, as it should be. I very much agree with the noble Baroness in her comment on the role of optometrists. I have addressed the annual meeting of the College of Optometrists and I pay tribute to their work. I agree that if they can take on more work, we shall be able to speed up the process and reduce the number of contacts that the patient needs to make with the health service. We shall do all we can to persuade the NHS that optometrists should be used more fully and effectively.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, many ophthalmologists recognise the benefits of "Action on Cataracts". However, the bulk of the moneys devoted to that programme are capital moneys. Many ophthalmologists also wish to see revenue funding dedicated to ophthalmic surgery. Can the Minister indicate whether such extra revenue funding will be made available?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the money is very much capital based. However, the purpose behind injecting this sum of money into the health service is to provide the right incentives and encouragement for local eye services, which will meet the point made by the noble Lord on the role that optometrists can play in providing a much more effective service. The intention is that the outcome of this work will be that treatment is speeded up, waiting times are reduced and optometrists are utilised to the full. We are encouraging other local services beyond the 60 who will receive funding to look at their provision in the same light.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, can the Minister say whether there are any other excellent eye surgery centres equivalent to Moorfields Eye Hospital, which we are so fortunate to have here in London? What is the waiting time at those centres? Are they to receive any special funding? The Minister referred several times to local funding. Is there also to be provision for specialist centres in eye treatment?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, as the noble Baroness would expect, there are a number of highly specialist centres throughout the country. In Birmingham we have an extremely good centre that I would commend to the House. Of course, funding for specialised services is dependent on the funding mechanism that we have in place in the health service to ensure that such specialised services do receive the required funding. To that end, we have specialised national and regional commissioning arrangements to enable the appropriate funding to be made. The key issue here relates to local services, because that is where we shall make the best impact in terms of reducing waiting times.
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, the initiative to which the Minister has referred is most welcome. However, the problem lies not so much in the length of the waiting list after having seen an ophthalmologist as in the waiting time in many centres of excellenceߞnot only Birmingham, London, Oxford and Newcastle and others—for a consultation with the ophthalmologist. What steps are the Government taking to increase the consultant establishment in this specialty?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the advice that I have received in relation to consultant specialty is that at present we have enough consultants to meet the demands being placed on the service but we need a much greater emphasis on improving the way in which the service is organised. Improvements can be made. I have mentioned already the role of optometrists. Other improvements can be made in relation to journeys to reduce the number of times a patient has to be seen by the service. With the injection of this

1117
resource and the improved organisation and management of services, we shall be able to achieve the target that we have set.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, the Minister referred to a period of six months between referral and surgery in the case of cataract treatment. Does this present a health hazard?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the question of waiting is the biggest challenge that the service faces. That is why we are right to place a great deal of emphasis on reducing waiting times, not only in relation to cataract operations but in relation to all operative procedures. Clearly we wish to get the figures down as much as possible. If we can achieve a maximum of six months by 2003, we will have done very well. We need to ensure that we get the waiting time down by as much as possible. In most cases, the sooner people are seen and treated the better it is in health terms.
Lord McColl of Dulwich: My Lords, £20 million split between 60 centres is one-third of a million pounds each. Can the Minister say how that will be spent? How many operations does he think that will accomplish?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the point about the £20 million is that it provides a real incentive to those 60 local services to improve the management and operation facilities available to provide treatment for patients. If we are as successful as intended, we shall then be able to achieve a through-put of patients to meet the target that we have set of a maximum of six months. The money will be spent on various facilities to enable us to improve the service that we offer. I stress that it is not only a question of money but about how we organise those services. It is about how we involve optometrists much more in the provision of services. If we can pull that off, I have no doubt that we shall achieve the target.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is it the Government's position that the waiting list time is dependent upon the insertion of government money or are there other factors which would entail a certain amount of waiting time, whether or not that money was found? If so, what are the Government doing about it?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the waiting time issue in the health service is a multi-faceted challenge. Of course resource is extremely important. It is also important that we have enough people to provide the service required. Crucially, we need to ensure that the organisation of the NHS is as effective and efficient as possible. The injection of £20 million into the service will enable us to provide additional facilities and it will act as an incentive to change the way we organise those services. I believe that by
1118
changing the way we organise those services we can achieve a faster through-put of patients and meet the six months' target.

Peers' Voting Rights
2.46 p.m.
Lord Parekh Lord Parekh asked Her Majesty's Government:
In the light of the Human Rights Act 1998, when they will seek to amend the law to allow Members of the House of Lords to vote in parliamentary elections.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Bassam of Brighton): My Lords, we have no plans to do so. Members of your Lordships' House already have an opportunity to have their views expressed in Parliament in our debates. Members also have a very direct say and influence in the legislative process. If Members were also able to be represented in another place they would be uniquely privileged. We do not believe that this is desirable. We are satisfied that this view is in accordance with Article 3 of the First Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights, which concerns the right to free elections.
Lord Parekh: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. While I appreciate his arguments, perhaps I may suggest that those normally deployed against Members of the House of Lords voting in parliamentary elections make far less sense today than they did in the days of hereditary Peers. We are all commoners now in one form or another—we do not constitute a separate class—and therefore deserve a say in how the more powerful other place is composed and constituted. Perhaps I may also suggest that the right to vote in parliamentary elections—
Noble Lords: Question!
Lord Parekh: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the Minister whether the Government, when considering proposals for reform of your Lordships' House, will take into account not only its composition but the right of its Members to vote in parliamentary elections?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the noble Lord is a distinguished political theoretician. I am very interested in his views. No doubt they are shared elsewhere. This is all part of a longer and wider debate.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it would be a very strange reading of the Human Rights Act or the European Convention on Human Rights if Members of this House, who have voluntarily chosen to be here—unlike, for example, the guests of Her Majesty's Prison Service—were suddenly to get an enforceable right to vote for

1119
Members of the other House under the European Convention on Human Rights? Would not that be a very strange reading of the convention?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the long and the short answer is "Yes".
Baroness Fookes: My Lords, using the arguments deployed by the Minister, why do Members of Parliament have votes?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I think the official response is that they are not Members of Parliament when the election takes place.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, will my noble friend consider this proposition: that there should be no taxation without representation? As this House has no control over taxation, should we not be represented in the House that does?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am happy to give the matter consideration; however, it is probably completely beyond me.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, surely the Minister is right. There is no case for our having someone to represent us in Parliament when we have the privilege of being able to represent ourselves. Would there not be strength in the argument advanced by the noble Lord only if we were to lose our right to influence the legislative process? Can we be assured by the Government that there are no plans to alter our existing right to play a part in the legislative process?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am more than happy to give that assurance. The noble Lord will recall that when certain hereditaries lost their right to be Members of this legislature, they gained the right to vote in a general election.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the issue it not so much influence on the details of the legislative programme as influence on which government is elected? Surely that is a right that we ought to be entitled to exercise.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, my noble friend is entitled to his opinions. As I said, this debate goes wider than the Question. Perhaps it will be discussed further in the future.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, does the Minister agree that to say that a question is part of another, wider debate is the kind of all-purpose answer which does not fit any bill at all. I hope that the Minister—to whom I wish to be nothing but fair—will refrain from following his own lamentable example.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I do believe that the matter is part of a wider debate. I do not accept the noble Lord's interpretation of my responses.

Mr Rafiu Odetayo
2.52 p.m.
Baroness Whitaker Baroness Whitaker asked Her Majesty's Government:
What progress there has been with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office inquiry into how Mr Rafiu Odetayo, a black British citizen, spent a month in prison in Germany after British consular officials refused to recognise his citizenship.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): My Lords, we have asked the Germans for a full account of the reasons for Mr Odetayo's detention. We are awaiting a substantive written report from them. We have ascertained that Mr Odetayo's detention from 9th February to early March was because of an alleged physical assault by Mr Odetayo on a German police officer. We have requested authority from the State Attorney's Office for the release of the papers. We hope to have the final report soon.
Baroness Whitaker: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. There are obviously significant questions for the German authorities to answer. They are, after all, like us, signatories to the European Convention on Human Rights. However, it is important to know more about the conduct of our own consular officials. Did they visit Mr Odetayo during his weeks in prison? Did they clarify his status with the German police or find out whether the German authorities had charged him?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, initially, Mr Odetayo was not visited. He was not offered consular assistance while in detention as consular officials understood him to have been unlawfully in possession of a British passport and not to he a British citizen. When he came to the Consulate General in Frankfurt on 4th March 1999, he was able to satisfy the consular official of his eligibility to hold a British passport and was issued with a new passport without delay.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, are consular officials advised that they should consider people to be British citizens if they claim to be so unless there is evidence to the contrary, granted that something like a majority of black British people are now full British citizens?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I can reassure the noble Baroness in relation to that matter. This may not be the appropriate moment to go through the details, but there were particular difficulties in this case. Mr Odetayo had been issued with two passports: one had been lost and then stolen; the second was valid. It seems that there may have been confusion in relation to which passport was claimed. We are trying as hard as we can to obtain clarification

1121
from the German authorities. It may be that the wrong information was given, causing confusion. I can reassure the noble Baroness that everything is done to make sure that all British citizens receive the same quality of consular care.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, did the problem arise in any way from a confusion over citizenship law? Will the Minister give an indication as to what training consular officials receive in citizenship law?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, nothing appears on the face of the papers I have received to date to indicate that this was the result of confusion in relation to citizenship law. The confusion seems to have related to whether Mr Odetayo held a valid British passport. Training is certainly given to our consular officials in relation to the exercise of their duties. UK-based staff are given specific training in good race relations and in how to deal properly with such matters.
Lord Rotherwick: My Lords, perhaps I may clarify a point. The Minister said that the first passport was lost and stolen. If I understand her correctly, the second was presumably the one that was replaced by the final third version. Was the second passport incorrectly issued? Otherwise, why did it have to be replaced with a third?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, the second passport was properly issued. As I have said, we are trying to clarify the facts with the German authorities. It is not clear whether the second passport was lost, stolen or retained. We are trying to make sure that a clear exposition of the facts is obtained. I am not in a position to help the House further at this point. We are obviously concerned that any confusion at all has occurred. We are trying to clarify matters so that it does not happen again and so that the German authorities are clear, as our authorities are, in regard to the proper process to be followed if anything of this sort happens again.
Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, can my noble friend help me a little further? If the second passport was properly issued, why did it take a consular official a month to labour under the misapprehension that the person was not a British citizen? Although there may be no need for training in law, as my noble friend assured the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, has my noble friend identified the other area of training that the consular official in this case might have needed?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I apologise in advance for the fact that this is a somewhat complicated tale. If it will assist the House, I shall explain a little further. Passport number one, if I may so describe it, was submitted to consular officials because it had been damaged. It was subsequently lost and stolen. Passport number two, with a different
1122
number, was then issued. It is unclear whether the number on passport number one was the number given when the second inquiry was made. Confusion over the two numbers may have been the problem. We are trying to get to the bottom of the issue. I hope that that is clear.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, can the Minister help the House a little further? If a passport is lost or damaged, is it not automatically cancelled?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, usually that would happen. Passport number one was put aside to be discarded and was stolen before it was cancelled. I could entertain your Lordships for a great deal longer!

Judges: Safety in Court
2.58 p.m.
Lord Ackner Lord Ackner asked Her Majesty's Government:
What they propose to do to ensure the safety of HM's circuit and district judges and their deputies in the light of the recent attack on Judge Ann Goddard at the Central Criminal Court.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg): My Lords, I spoke to Judge Goddard at her home on the evening of the deplorable attack on her. She is much admired. After only a day off, she was back sitting as a judge.
In all courts the security of the prisoner in the dock is the responsibility of the Prison Service, not the Court Service, for which I am responsible. Although there were three professional security guards in the dock, still the defendant escaped and attacked the judge. It was a court clerk who pulled him away, closely followed by a detective constable in court, both of whose conduct was exemplary. I have commissioned a departmental security inquiry which, among other things, will have to consider why the three security guards did not react effectively to the emergency. The lessons to be learnt from this failure will be explored with the Prison Service.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I have to confess to the House an interest in this Question. I have a daughter who is attractive and clever—qualities that she derives entirely from her mother. That fact was fully recognised by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor when he recently appointed her as a district judge. My interest is in her safety and the safety of her colleagues. Does the noble and learned Lord accept that district judges, sitting without a clerk or even ushers in small, non-purpose-built rooms to which the public can have direct access and which have only one door for ingress and egress, have absolutely no means of escape if there is an attack and are, therefore, highly vulnerable?
Does the noble and learned Lord also accept that these judges have to hear and decide potentially explosive cases, particularly on the civil side, with the

1123
parties nearly always appearing in person, often with little or no respect for authority, and involving such cases as domestic violence, possession actions by housing authorities due to nuisance and annoyance caused by drug abuse, and applications to commit to prison for breaches of court orders? Can the noble and learned Lord tell the House what he has in mind to stop the already serious decline in the back-up services of judges, dictated by the Treasury?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I can confirm that the daughter of the noble and learned Lord was appointed by me to be a district judge on her strong merits and without any regard to her parentage. There are 420 guards in courts across the country: 160 in the Crown Courts, 200 in the combined courts, and 60 in the county courts, including most family hearing centres. Most are provided through contractors. At present, £8 million a year is spent on security contracts. Recently an additional £3 million for three years—that is, £1 million per year—was allocated both to secure better services and to extend guarding facilities in family hearing centres, with the object of putting 176 new guards into these centres over the next three years.
I have observed for myself the difficulties that affect district judges, as described by the noble and learned Lord. I have asked the Court Service to consider the want, as it were, of any line of retreat for a district judge in the district judge's court in the event of an incident.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, would the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor consider the installation of alarm bells, or something of that kind, so that a district judge sitting alone in his or her room who is extremely vulnerable could summon help urgently if it is needed?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I believe that that facility is available in some, but not all, cases. I shall certainly consider the possibility and request a report on the matter.
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord aware that an expensive glass security screen has recently been installed at Cardiff Crown Court and that, according to a report in The Times this morning, it is not proving entirely satisfactory because, apparently, the defendants can no longer hear a word of the evidence?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, there is no satisfying everyone, including defendants. However, a balance must be struck between enclosing all court rooms so that escape from them is impossible and providing an acceptable environment for defendants who have not yet been convicted of crime. Enclosed docks are provided at certain courts where high-risk trials frequently take place. It is obviously essential that the security facility should not prevent defendants hearing the proceedings.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, although the safety and protection of judges is clearly of the greatest
1124
importance, will the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor resist any further centralisation of courts, especially criminal courts?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I would not necessarily give an affirmative answer to that question. I believe that most people expect uniform standards of security in our courts.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, is not the trouble with alarm bells the fact that that pre-supposes that someone is available to answer them? In the courts served by many district judges, the usher, a lady, is there only on part-time duties. In the afternoon, when things usually get most heated, she is not there.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, there are many fundamental proposals available; for example, either the former routine uniformed police presence should be reinstated or a new uniformed service should be established by the Court Service to provide security in courts. I have asked my officials to report to me within three months on the adequacy of existing arrangements, on the options for their improvement, and on the feasibility of more fundamental proposals.

Tax Simplification Bills: Joint Committee
3.7 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That this House do concur with the Commons in their message of 21st December, that it is expedient that a Joint Committee of Lords and Commons be appointed to consider tax simplification Bills, and in particular to consider whether each Bill committed to it preserves the effect of the existing law, subject to any minor changes which may be desirable;
That a Select Committee of six Lords be appointed to join with a committee appointed by the Commons as the Joint Committee on Tax Simplification Bills;
That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following Lords be named of the committee:

L. Blackwell,

L. Brightman,

B. Cohen of Pimlico,

L. Goodhart,

L. Haskel,

L. Howe of Aberavon;

That the committee have power to agree with the Commons in the appointment of a chairman;
That the quorum of the committee shall be two;
That the committee have leave to report from time to time;
That the committee have power to appoint specialist advisers;

1125
That the minutes of evidence taken before the committee shall, if the committee thinks fit, be printed and delivered out;
That the procedure of the Joint Committee shall follow the procedure of Select Committees of the House of Commons when such procedure differs from that of Select Committees of this House, and shall include the power of the chairman to select amendments;
and that the committee do meet with a committee appointed by the Commons on Thursday 18th January at half-past ten o'clock in Committee Room 3.—( The Chairman of Committees.)
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees for not raising this matter with him beforehand. It shows a lamentable lack of preparation on my part. Can the noble Lord kindly explain to the House the arrangements for the quorum of this Joint Committee? The Motion states that the quorum shall consist of two. However, two is an extremely small number. Although it may be correct proportionally in accordance with precedent, I wonder whether two is an adequate quorum in this case. In the circumstances, and more importantly, I wonder whether the forum should be two, consisting of one Member from each House?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, before the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees replies, perhaps I may make one point. The Motion before us is unusual. I wonder whether the noble Lord can confirm that my recollection of this in the Procedure Committee is correct. Most unusually for a Joint Committee of both Houses, this allows for a majority of Members of another place. The reason behind that was due, first, to the request of Members of the House of Commons that that should be so; and, secondly—perhaps more importantly from our point of view—to the fact that this Joint Committee will deal with tax powers. It should not, therefore, be seen as any precedent for the House of Commons being able to have a majority on joint committees of both Houses on any other matter.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, perhaps I may take this opportunity—the first available to me—to welcome the noble Lord as the new Chairman of Committees. I hope that he will perform a long and distinguished service in that job. Although I agree that Members of your Lordships' House are more than appropriate for looking at tax simplification matters, I am not madly happy about joint committees with the other place because, generally, Members of the other place tend to be less objective than Members of this House.
I should like to take up another point that arises from the Motion moved by the noble Lord. I refer to the line that says that,
"the procedure of the Joint Committee shall follow the procedure of Select Committees of the House of Commons".
1126
I assume that to mean that, for example, unlike in your Lordships' House, the committee will be able to call witnesses who would be obliged to attend, whereas at present witnesses appear only if they volunteer to do so; in other words, they can refuse to come forward.
If the noble Lord has not already done so, will he look into the question of whether your Lordships should have the same powers as apply in another place, so that we can ensure that witnesses are obliged to attend when our Select Committees wish them to do so?
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I am happy to respond to the points which have been made. I hope that the debate does not last as long as the equivalent debate in another place on Monday. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, that we are discussing a special committee set up to deal with tax simplification. It does not change tax legislation; it is an attempt to make it more easily understood by non-experts. That seems to me to be a sensible arrangement.
As regards witnesses, the committee is to follow the procedure of the House of Commons largely for the same reason that I shall mention with regard to a Commons majority. However, I shall have to consider the noble Lord's suggestion that committees of your Lordships' House should have the same powers as the other place with regard to compelling people's attendance.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, that I understand that the quorum of two comprises two Members from each House. However, I freely admit that that is not clear on the face of the Motion. However, I shall check that my understanding is correct. I confirm to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, that the committee is considered a rather special one.
I refer to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, with regard to the procedures we are discussing following Commons procedures. As your Lordships know, noble Lords discuss only the Second Reading of the Finance Bill. Finance is very much the province of the other place. The usual channels and everyone else agreed that in this case the Commons should have one more member on the committee and that its procedure should follow that of a Commons committee. That is in no way a precedent for any other Joint Committee.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, before the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees sits down, has he observed that paragraph 9.41 of the Companion to the Standing Orders states:
"The procedure in a joint committee is that of select committees of the House of Lords"?
I understand that that will not be the case as regards the committee we are discussing, but does that mean that the Standing Orders will have to be changed as a result?
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I cannot instantly recall the line that the noble Lord mentioned.

1127
However, it is not my understanding that the Standing Orders will have to be changed. The Motion will allow for the change to be made as regards the joint committee we are discussing.
On Question, Motion agreed to, and a message was sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.

Marriage and Family Values
3.13 p.m.
Baroness Youngrose to call attention to marriage and traditional family values; and to move for Papers.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, it is my hope that today's debate will make a positive contribution to the national debate on marriage which is now taking place. I start by saying how pleased I am that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is to reply to the debate. I thank him for his letter giving me notice of his two important statements yesterday.
Today, we have on the one hand of this national debate the powerful voice of Archbishop Cormac Murphy-O'Connor, speaking on behalf of the Roman Catholic Church in support of marriage and the traditional family and, on the other, the right honourable Member in another place, Tessa Jowell, the Minister for women, who has said that marriage should not be regarded as the best way to live and bring up children, but simply as one of a series of equally valid alternative lifestyles—a view I understand, if the press is correct, that is shared by the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, and the honourable Member Margaret Hodge, though not by some other members of the Government.
I believe that this view is shared also by the Liberal Democrats, judging by their contribution to the debates during the Learning and Skills Bill earlier last summer on what should be included in the guidelines on sex education in schools. The House voted in favour of accepting the importance of marriage as a major building block of society but considered other lifestyles equally valid. I am glad that my right honourable friend William Hague has pledged his support for marriage and the traditional family. I shall say more on that later.
If the anxious parent looks to the law to help and support marriage, there is little comfort. Each piece of legislation narrows the distinction between marriage and co-habiting in all its forms. Brenda Hoggett QC, (now Mrs. Justice Hale), when a member of the Faculty of Law of Manchester University, wrote:
"Family law no longer makes any attempt to buttress the stability of marriage or any other union. It has adopted principles for the protection of children and dependent spouses which could be made equally applicable to the unmarried. In such circumstances the piecemeal erosion of the distinctions between marriage and non-marital co-habitation may be expected to continue. Logically we have already reached a point at which rather than discussing which remedies should be extended to the unmarried, we should be considering whether the legal institution of marriage continues to serve any useful purpose".
Can the anxious parent get more help from the Church? I am, of course, very pleased that two right reverend Prelates are to take part in the debate today.
1128
As a member of the Church of England, I am, however, disappointed to find divisions in the Church, perhaps best summed up by the vote on Section 28 when four bishops voted for repeal and four voted against. The trumpet has certainly sounded an uncertain tune.
So the issue today is whether marriage, which I define as a ceremony taking place between a man and a woman making a public commitment to live together for life, is the best way for society as a whole. Or do we continue on the path of marginalising marriage by making it just one of many ways to live? As a general election draws nearer, we shall hear more of this question. Does it matter? And, if so, why does it matter? I should like to try to answer those questions.
Let me base my answers on facts. The number of marriages each year is declining. In 1980 there were approximately 370,000 marriages, of which 241,000 were for the first time. By 1999 this number had fallen to 263,500 marriages, of which 155,000 were for the first time. In 20 years the number of marriages has declined between 25 and 30 per cent.
There are some who think that by 2020 the number of married people in the country will be in the minority for the first time in some 3,000 years and that we shall be one of the first countries in history not to have marriage as a basis of its society. The fall in the number of marriages has been accompanied by a fall in birth rates. There were 16 live births for each thousand of the population in 1979 and by 1999 this had fallen to 11 per thousand—something of which we are just becoming aware as the population ages and there are not enough young people to fill important vacancies. This will have serious consequences for the future. We already know that the skills shortage in some areas has resulted in the need to increase the number of immigrants. So although most people marry and 60 per cent of marriages last a lifetime, 40 per cent end in divorce and the UK has the highest divorce rate in the European Union.
While there has been a decline in marriage there has been an increase in couples living together. The latest evidence from the report Seven Years in the Lives of British Families, produced by the Institute for Social and Economic Research, found that 70 per cent of young people interviewed in the 1990s opted to cohabit. But the facts show that only a third of cohabiting relationships last. So cohabiting couples are even more likely to break up.
Cohabiting cannot therefore be considered as "marriage without the vows", as some would say. The same point is made by Patricia Morgan, in her book, Marriage Lite. This profound social change means that some 39 per cent of all children in England and Wales are born outside marriage into unstable relationships, and as the report to which I referred goes on to say,
"more British children will spend significant parts of their childhood in families with only one parent".
That parent is almost always the mother. So one major and important change in society today is the absence of fathers in the home. The effects of this have been

1129
grossly under-estimated. Children need two parents, prepared to give a lifelong commitment to support their children. It is tragic when you hear some women say, as I have done, that men today are almost irrelevant.
One curious effect of cohabitation is that couples who cohabit before marriage are 50 per cent more likely to divorce than those who do not. Both the fall in the number of marriages each year and the increase in cohabitation are accompanied by a high divorce rate. In 1961, there were 32,000 divorces. In 1971, the first year of operation of the 1969 Divorce Reform Act, the number had risen to 110,000. Between 1988 and 1998 the average annual divorce rate was 179,000. The numbers have fallen recently, but that is only because there are fewer marriages. The effect of all this is felt most heavily by the children. One in four children will see their parents divorce before the child is 16. Many adults have in fact offloaded their unhappiness on to their children and, although much is done to try to keep and support children, it is the children who suffer. This is a hard and uncomfortable fact that society often refuses to acknowledge.
Does all this matter? In 1994 it was estimated that family breakdown was costing £5 billion in benefits and other expenditure. A recent report has put the cost at £16 billion, and it is not difficult to see how that figure was arrived at. It compares with the £4 million annual support to marriage and relationships promised by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor yesterday.
Then we have the breakdown of discipline in schools. Most teachers will tell you that discipline is more difficult today. It is not unusual to hear of four and five year-olds arriving at school "completely out of control". One reason for that is the absence of supportive parents. Here one can see the effect of the absence of fathers.
In their Green Paper, Supporting Families, the Government acknowledged that,
"rising crime and drug abuse are indirect symptoms of problems in the family".
And in their publication, published last week, Fighting Violent Crime Together; An Action Plan, the Government again point to a strong link between crime and broken marriages, stating,
"Numerous studies have shown parental separation to be a good predictor of both juvenile and adult offending".
Lest all these views are thought to come simply from Conservatives, let me quote from A. H. Halsey, Professor of Social Policy at Nuffield College, Oxford, and co-author of English Ethical Socialism, who has written:
"Children of parents who do not follow on the traditional norm (i.e., taking on personal, active and long term responsibility for the social upbringing of the children they generate) are thereby disadvantaged in many major aspects of their chances of leading a successful life. On the evidence available, such children tend to die earlier, to have more illness, to do less well at school, to exist at a lower level of nutrition, comfort and conviviality, to suffer more unemployment, to be more prone to deviance and crime and, finally, to repeat the cycle of unstable parenting from which they themselves have suffered".
1130
The same message comes from a report produced in 1998 and reviewed by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation.
Add to this the very worrying situation of the increase in teenage pregnancies—there are 90,000 teenage conceptions a year, around 8,000 to girls under 16; and that figure has been steady for the past 10 years—and we begin to see the effect of the breakdown of marriage and the traditional family. Almost the saddest fact is that now 20 per cent of the population are single people. If we add those who are divorced or separated, the figure rises to 36 per cent. As they grow older, they will become an increased charge on the NHS and social services because, unlike married couples, they will have no one immediately at hand to look after them, and no one with whom to share the costs.
So the answer to my first question is quite clearly that the breakdown of traditional marriage and the traditional family does matter to society and its effects are felt today in every aspect of policy. The question now is what to do. One thing is quite clear. We cannot change all this quickly, even if there were a will to do so. Just as it has taken us 35 years to get where we are, it will in my view take at least as long to put right some of the problems I have enumerated. But there are things that we could do immediately.
I am very glad that my right honourable friend William Hague has pledged to re-introduce the tax allowances for married couples. This is especially important for married couples with children. It sends an immediate signal that a future government believe in supporting marriage by giving back to married couples the money they have earned at a time of greatly increased expense, particularly after the birth of a baby. I hope that a future Conservative government would look through the whole benefits system to see that marriage is supported. There is a real difference between supporting marriage and keeping couples together, and supporting children and single parents which seems to be the present policy.
A second step could be to overhaul the sex education policy currently being conducted in our schools. It has clearly failed in its objective of preventing teenage pregnancies. The more sex education there has been the more teenage pregnancies there have been. The new policy of allowing chemists to supply the morning-after pill—which we shall debate shortly—is, I believe, unlikely to bring down the rate of teenage pregnancy, if that is its purpose, and will have undesirable side-effects. We should, instead, be supporting parents. We should not encourage school nurses, or doctors, to give advice to girls and boys under the age of 16 without the knowledge of their parents. That seems to me to undermine family life in an important way. We could take a good look at what is happening in the United States. A number of states have introduced an abstinence policy of simply teaching in school the benefits of saying "no" and that sex is for marriage, which, where it has been applied, has in fact had the effect of bringing down the number

1131
of teenage pregnancies. This policy has the support of Senator Hillary Clinton, who wrote in her book, It takes a village:
"After many years of working with and listening to American adolescents, I don't believe they are ready for sex or its potential consequences—parenthood, abortion, sexually transmitted diseases—and I think we need to do everything in our power to discourage sexual activity and encourage abstinence".
Thirdly, the law should acknowledge the importance of the married state; and each piece of legislation should be considered in this light.
To conclude, I believe that the facts in support of marriage speak for themselves. However, I recognise that I am talking about an ideal. It may well be that in the course of today's debate—I am pleased to see so many speakers—some will refer to the back to basics campaign of my right honourable friend John Major. That policy was right in my view: it failed because it did not make clear that what was proposed was an ideal. I accept that marriage is difficult. Most relationships are. And not all will succeed. But, to use an analogy, Beethoven remains a great composer, even when some play his music badly.
Marriage has stood the test of time. It stands as a bulwark against the power of the state. For all the reasons I have given it helps to sustain education, a society with less crime, and stability. And whatever may be argued, 82 per cent of young people aged between 16 and 17, when asked, have said that they plan to marry. It seems to me right to put the ideal in front of the young and not to argue, as the Minister, Tessa Jowell, has, that it would be "unkind" or "exclusive" to speak the truth on these matters. My own view is that it is unhelpful, not to say irresponsible, not to speak the truth to young people and to society on issues which are of such great importance to them and their future.
Of course there are exceptions. There are single women who bring up their children successfully and I congratulate them. However, the overwhelming facts are as I have set out.
I started by referring to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. In the press statement he sent to me, he, too, referred to marriage and relationships funding. Perhaps he will say what he means by "relationships" in that context. He also sent me a statement setting out the Government's intention to repeal Part II of the Family Law Act 1996. When that measure was before the House, I argued against it from Second Reading through to Third Reading. If I may say so, I think that I have been shown to be right. I hope that the Government will heed what I have said today. I believe that it is a message for the whole country. I beg to move for Papers.
3.31 p.m.
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I very much welcome this debate. I have a great deal of respect for the noble Baroness, Lady Young, as she knows, although I have inevitably disagreed with her stance in recent debates.
1132
This debate gives us the opportunity to air our views on the condition of human relations in our society at the beginning of the 21st century. We all want strong, enduring families and, in most cases, despite the rise in divorce, that is what we have.
Some useful facts may help us, because the tenor of the debate so far might allow us to think that marriage is finished and families are fragmented in the United Kingdom today. The reality is different. More than 80 per cent of children in the United Kingdom grow up with two adults who are their parents—so no great revolution there. More people live in so-called "traditional" family households than in any other type of family, according to the Office for National Statistics. Fathers spend more quality time with their children today than was the case in the 1950s. I in no way decry the magnificent contribution that lone parents make to our society, but the fact is that lone-parent households account for only 7 per cent of all UK households. That is nearly the figure for the support enjoyed by the Conservative Party according to some opinion polls.
If the bald facts do not convince noble Lords, perhaps I may rehearse some recent history. In 1999, my noble friend the Leader of the House and the Minister for Women, Lady Jay, conducted a unique consultation exercise with the women of this country. The consultation asked three questions: What do you think is the single most important issue facing this country today? What do you think is the single most important issue facing women today? What in your view should the Government do to help women? The response rate was staggering for a government questionnaire, with 28,000 completed responses. What issues were women in our country today most exercised about? They were exercised about balancing paid work and family life, getting women's voices heard better, combating violence against women. the gap between men's and women's pay, women's health issues and the teenage years for girls. C'oncerns about the condition of marriage and traditional family values were not at the forefront of that huge postbag of responses. Those 28,000 British women had other priorities and issues that they wanted the Government to deal with to improve their lives. I am sure that they were all doing their best to hold relationships together, to look after their children and to get on with their lives.
From the comments so far, noble Lords might be forgiven for thinking that the Government had no interest in supporting strong families in this country. I offer a few examples to refute that impression: the Supporting Families initiative, which is the first of its kind; the marriage packs, which are also the first of their kind and give advice for those setting out on marriage; the first-ever National Childcare Strategy; and, of course, the enormous resources, running to hundreds of millions of pounds across departments of government, that are assisting families every day.
I believe that strong societies make strong families—a proposition that might be tricky for anyone who was once a member of a government who denied that society existed. Nothing corrupts family life as much

1133
as poverty. I therefore conclude by saying what I believe makes good families: the New Deal; the minimum wage; falling unemployment; rising incomes; support for young professionals to find homes; better managed estates; a commitment to skills and carers; schools that parents support; an active respect for the voices of women; and streamlined access to adoption. All those policies make good families and they are all being delivered by the Government in a massive investment in the health of family life in this country.
3.36 p.m.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, like many, I hesitated many times before putting my name down to speak in this debate. When, at the 11th hour, I did so, I promised that I would make my general position plain before raising the few points that there is time for.
My first point is that, although I have been married gratefully and happily for 33 years, there has been a great deal of luck, and on my part failing, integral to that. Secondly, I view permanent parenting relationships as the bedrock of a good society and undoubtedly best for children. I observe that that occurs increasingly outside marriage. The idealism, hard work, forgiveness and celebration that are integral to a good marriage often are—and certainly should be—no less so for good partnership.
Having made that clear, perhaps I could distort one of Thomas Jefferson's most famous sayings: if I lived in a world where the choice was between good family life and good government, I would choose the former. Ultimately, government exists within a context of free behaviour. If the fabric of society collapses, it will collapse government, too.
Having said that, my considered view is that marriage has two clear advantages over partnership. The first is that by making a private, lifelong commitment in public, usually in the company of one's nearest and dearest friends and relations, one enlists their lifelong support. If one has any belief in the mystical as well as practical power of human sympathy, as I certainly do, that will significantly help the relationship through the inevitable trials and tribulations that will beset the best of marriages.
Secondly, exchanging purely private protestations of mutual love and living together, even over a long period, is not the same as making a solemn and binding public promise, with the premeditation and ceremony that sharpen and deepen the awareness and commitment of those making it. In saying that, I mean no disparagement to those in partnership. Like many here, I have children in that position. One does not have to look far to find women, in particular, who, even after long partnership, are not entirely sure as to what their partner feels and intends in the long term.
The role of the state in all this is limited. Good families and right values are the organic creation of the individuals, families and communities that make up society and the way in which they live and exist. However, the state gets dragged willy-nilly into all
1134
that, as it has to pay for the breakdown of relationships, within or without marriage, when there are children.
It is surely counter-productive for marriage to be penalised, if that is the word, in the sense that only when there is marriage is there a forcible, fair split of income and capital assets between the parties when the relationship breaks down. Any man today who walks away from a long-term partnership where there has been no marriage is not obliged to pay a penny piece to the woman concerned, however rich he is and however poor she is. That seems to me to be an extraordinary inversion, given what I suspect is the more general view that marriage is the better option.
With those words, and with time being as it is, I shall sit down.
3.40 p.m.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, when I have got over the shock of being placed in a maiden speaker's position, I should like to congratulate my noble friend Lady Young on initiating this important debate at this time of year. Christmas is probably the most suitable time in the world to think about families. It is the season of the holy family, when all the world is silent, concentrating on that great event in a far-off stable. It is the time when the light comes into the world or, indeed, for pagans, the mid-winter solstice, when the days which had been growing ever shorter suddenly became longer. The darkness was decreasing. There would be spring again: the sun and the light would come back.
Of course, for all of us it is a lovely time—a time when we gather together and when families come home. And every family naturally has its own tiny moments of tension: "You know you put your spectacles in your bag. And if you've turned the whole bag upside down then it must have been someone else's bag". "Why did you give them a set of drums, a tin whistle, a wodge of potty putty—yes, that's what you've just been sitting on in your new dress". "It was your dog that was sick, not mine; and it was certainly your dog that ate the chocolate in the bottom of my stocking". "Whose turn is it to unload the dishwasher?" "Well, of course I threw it out; it was past its sell-by. How was I to know that it was tomorrow's lunch?" Those are all remarks that most of us have heard at one time or another in our families. They are just human remarks, and they have nothing to do with the power, the strength and the involvement that we all gain from our families.
This year, with four of our six children married, we were lucky enough to have a full muster, not all at once but at intervals, from the two just-walking babies to my noble kinsman and clan chief at 94, whose own marriage lasted for over 60 years while ours is still in its infancy at 48. We made our own magic with a children's party for 50 children, candles and a gingerbread castle, which took my daughter from Washington four days to make (from a special recipe culled from the President-Elect's mother) with some

1135
help from all of us. It took the children just four minutes flat to demolish it. A puppet lady showed the children how to make a magic rainbow, and Father Christmas himself was piped down the stairs through garlands of cypress and ivy and twinkling gold bells. The children parted like the Red Sea as he made his way to the Christmas tree and unloaded his sack with presents for all, which we were all wrapping up and sorting out until one in the morning the night before. A tree, green and glowing, was loaded with decorations gleaned through the years from the first green and red glass balls from Queen Victoria's reign over 100 years ago to some silver paste and glitter angels and stars made by my grandchildren this year. And, finally, Father Christmas was piped back up to his turret chimney through a floating cloud of coloured balloons.
I hope that your Lordships will not think me selfish in sharing those family reminiscences. It is because I should love to have had your Lordships with me, too, shouting for Father Christmas and dancing in the new century.
We went to a lot of nativity plays. One of our granddaughters was a mouse who travelled to Bethlehem to see what had happened. But the sheep told her that she could not go in because she had no present; so did the hens, waving rather tired and obviously empty cardboard egg containers; so did the shepherds. each bearing a woolly toy lamb; and so did the tiny kings. However, the mouse discovered a small hole high in the wall. When she peered down at the Baby Jesus, both Mary and Joseph thanked her for keeping the cold night draughts from his face. Retailing her story to her friend the owl, who was in fact her brother, he asked her, "What did you give the Baby Jesus?" "I gave myself', she said, "for as long as I was needed".
That, I believe, is what we do in families: we give ourselves for as long as we are needed. And, like dogs, it is not only for Christmas, but for life. A family is like the grain of mustard seed in the Bible: it is a small warm area of love which in its essence reaches out and infects everyone.
3.45 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Young, for her courage and determination in introducing this debate. However, very gently and with due courtesy but robust admiration, I dispute the metaphor in her opening speech about trumpet blasts and the Church of England, believing that single-instrument orchestras are not always the most pleasing nor the most truly harmonious. Be that as it may, it is said with the most enormous respect and affection.
Last July I had the huge privilege of conducting the funeral of the late Robert Runcie in St Albans Abbey. The abbey was packed to overflowing and crowds gathered outside. Towards the end of the service I led the family mourners to the graveside and said the prayers. For me and for everyone there, it was intensely moving.
1136
However, I had a problem that day—a family problem. Our son and daughter-in-law were clue to be married by me in St Albans Abbey only 15 minutes after the funeral ended. Noble Lords may picture the scene. Hundreds and hundreds of mourners who had come to pay their respects to a deeply loved man were pouring out of the west doors of the abbey. As they came out of the doors, so towards them across the abbey orchard walked a stunningly beautiful bride on the arm of her father. As they saw her approach, the crowds of mourners spontaneously burst into applause. For me, it was absolute magic.
I tell the story in order to make a simple point. The funeral of Lord Runcie was not value-free; the wedding of our son and daughter-in-law was not value-free either. Those kinds of service are not mistakes and are not aberrations; at the extremes of human life they are symbolic of what makes life worth while. They are examples of situations where private and public parts of our lives meet. Both the funeral and the wedding overflowed with values about mercy, hope, love, thanksgiving and new beginnings—values which ultimately are rooted in God.
Therefore, it seems to me literally non-sense to suggest that any of us lives in a value-free society; and if some values are more important than others—for example, giving thanks for a great life or sharing in a new marriage—then do we not as a nation have a moral duty to support those institutions which are of profound significance and which give eternal values human shape and human meaning? But how can we do so?
In preparing for this debate, one set of statistics leapt out at me. Just over 50 per cent of all divorcing couples have children under the age of 16. Of course, it is impossible to quantify confusion and sorrow. However, if it were possible, I believe that the confusion and sorrow endured by many of those children would be staggeringly large. As a society, we cannot be value-free about those children.
Of course, I recognise that not all marriages are good and I recognise that relationships break down. But surely we have a moral duty to ensure that marriages survive. Exhortation is not enough. We need to engineer our society legally, educationally, and financially so that fewer of our children are caught up in the anguish of family breakdown.
I offer a suggestion which is probably naïve, but I shall try. Should we not try to ensure that either parent, be they man or woman, with a child under the age of five receives a living wage to enable him or her to bring up that child without being forced back to work? It is patently wrong to interfere with private choice. However, I believe that a living wage for a parent for a limited period of time and for a limited number of children would do much to prevent the financial, time-management and emotional stresses and strains which can tear at the heart of young families.
I realise that I am almost out of time, but, briefly, I want to make two more points. First, the Churches, in common with other faith communities, already

1137
provide huge support in preparing couples for marriage and in the counsel and care of those whose marriages come to grief. Please may we be assured by the Minister that religious communities will not be discriminated against if governmental money is made available for grants and offers of support?
As an earnest of our concern, I am also able to say, on behalf of those Bishops who are unable to be present because they are currently at a three-line-whip meeting in York, that we should very much welcome the opportunity to meet the Lord Chancellor and his officials in the hope that we can make a proper contribution towards taking forward this important debate, which involves issues surrounding marriage preparation and reconciliation, and the whole area of family law.
3.51 p.m.
Lord Janner of Braunstone: My Lords, first, I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans for his moving speech. I want to move on from what he said about children. I agree with his premise and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Young, for whom I have both respect and affection.
We must be careful in promoting our own beliefs and backgrounds neither to stigmatise nor to penalise others who decide to take other paths, or, especially, their children. When 40 per cent of all marriages fail, and many failed marriages are, as the noble Baroness pointed out. between parents who have children under the age of 16, it would be totally wrong not to do all we can to give those children the same opportunities as others. Equally, if the parents of children decide, for whatever reason, not to marry, or if they are single parents, it would be wrong not to give them the same financial benefits as married couples, because the people who would suffer would be their children, who are in no way at fault.
I arrived at those views from a slightly different route from that of the right reverend Prelate because I come from a traditional Jewish family. My father, Barnett—Lord Janner—whom many of your Lordships knew, and my mother and my sister, Lady Morris of Kenwood, and I lived as a nuclear Jewish family. That gave us children a wonderful chance. My late wife, Myra, and I tried to offer the same to our three children, and I now hugely enjoy our six grandchildren. But the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, has already pointed out that we cannot impose on our children whatever way of life we may choose for them. We bring them up as best we can, just as our parents did their best for us. Some of our parents succeeded and some failed. We must do what we can. That is great if it works; but, if it does not, we must help our children who choose other routes in this decent, diverse society. We must certainly do so if they are leading happy, constructive and helpful lives and look after other people.
The right reverend Prelate reminded me of another member of my family, my wife's uncle, Sir Israel Brodie, with whom I spent a lot of time when he was
1138
terminally ill in St Thomas's Hospital. I remember one day sitting with him when he said to me, "Greville, remember that none of us is here for very long. We must live our lives as fulfilled as we can and help others to do the same". That is my approach.
Most noble Lords come from traditional families—certainly I do. We believe in marriage and, yes, we believe in virtue—I recall the argument of the noble Baroness, Lady Young—and in all that is best in the world. But we must recognise reality, and reality is changing. The reality is diversity and the fact that some of our children live in ways that are different from the way in which we have decided to live our lives. The reality is that we must help them and, above all, their children. For that reason, I wholeheartedly support the key paragraph in the Government's consultation document, Supporting Families. It states:
"This Government believes that marriage provides a strong foundation for stable relationships. This does not mean trying to make people marry or criticising or penalising people who choose not to. We do not believe the Government should interfere in people's lives that way".
I pause to say that even if we believe that, there is no way that we could successfully do so.
"We do share the belief of the majority of people that marriage provides the most reliable framework for raising children".
Yes, let us bolster that framework, but not at the expense of others who live differently and, above all, not at the expense of their children.
3.55 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the whole House will be grateful to my noble friend Lady Young for having introduced this debate. If I may say so, her speech was full of facts and statistics that were of enormous interest. If I may also say so, I admired the speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans. It said much more than the words he used. It was a remarkable speech.
Most nations, cultures and societies throughout the world, wherever they may be and however advanced or primitive they may be, acknowledge that their own society depends for its continuation, self-conduct and happiness on marriage in some form or shape. That is not necessarily a Christian view or a religious view, although it may be both, but it is a recognition of the fact that if good order is to be maintained, marriage is the bedrock upon which all else is built and from which all else flows. It is, of course, from parents that children learn to carry on whatever it is that their parents pass on to them. That may be in the form of manners, behaviours or attitudes.
There is a feeling in our society today, especially over the past 10 years or so, that the matter should be "loosened up". Some argue that the fact that so many marriages, regrettably, end in divorce, and the fact that parties get remarried and frequently provide a happy home, suggest that marriage should cease to be put on a pinnacle because so many people seem to fail to attain it or hang on to it. And, goes the argument, if we do create the idea that marriage is the desirable way in which to live and bring up families—I think that that is what the noble Lord, Lord Janner, was saying—we

1139
are somehow condemning those who have not attained this ideal as failures or as being irresponsible. Most of us—in fact, all of us—have to bear responsibility for what we do in our lives and for the results of what we do. That is not to say that one does not have to give equal help to children who come from marriages that have not succeeded.
The speech made by the Minister of State in the Department for Education and Employment to which my noble friend referred was pretty amazing. Ms Jowell said:
"The Government should not promote marriage as the ideal context for bringing up children … We would never want to advocate a family policy that made some children feel that they were first class children and others feel that they were second class … Children thrive in a stable environment, being brought up by parents who love them. I think in the 21st century families come in all shapes and sizes".
The latter point may be a fact, but I am horrified that a Minister should say that marriage is not on a pinnacle.
The fact is that life is a pretty hairy race and the best laid plans and intentions go astray. That is surely no reason not to aim for the best. Whatever we do, whether in our social, domestic or business life. we must strive for the best. If we strive for the best, we frequently only get second best, but if we are content to strive for second best, we will, of course, get only third best. Gradually, one corkscrews downwards.
Children want and ought to be brought up in a happy home with their parents. That must be the ideal. The fact that two people can live together in harmony and happiness, and can bring up children, even though they may not be married, is creditable. However, I find it hard to say to youth, and I find it fearful that the Government should say to youth, that because that has happened in some circumstances, living in a stable relationship without marriage should therefore be put on a par, and in equity, with those who live in a stable relationship in marriage. What do children gather from that? They gather that anything goes. We all, in what we do, whether socially, domestically, politically or in our business life, affect others. I hope that what we do encourages others. That also applies to the media, who are responsible for publishing a lot of things which people absorb and believe to be the norm.
4 p.m.
Lord Warner: My Lords, I am glad to have the opportunity to contribute to this debate, and do so having worked with the Ministerial Group on the Family since 1997 and having contributed to the preparation of the 1998 consultation paper, Supporting Families.
I have to say in passing that I do not recognise some of the fantasy stories in the media about warring Ministers. Supporting Families was a good example of Ministers working co-operatively across departmental boundaries to produce a coherent set of ideas on family policy that recognise the reality of today's world.
Today's reality is that the number of first marriages in England and Wales has halved since the peak of 1970. In 1998 there were 267,000 or so marriages,
1140
putting those among the lowest recorded figures for the 20th century. More couples are choosing to live together without marrying at all. In 1979—a significant date for many in this House—11 per cent of all unmarried women aged 18 to 49 were cohabiting. By 1998 that had increased to 29 per cent. That happened during a period when there was still a married couple's tax allowance, on which the noble Baroness and her party leader seem now to he placing great reliance.
If one wanted to make a narrow political point—I do not—one could say that successive Conservative governments presided over that terrible moral decline. But I recognise that the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, and Mr Major could do little about it. Those statistics are the results of millions of individual decisions by people who live in this country. I just wish that many current-day supporters in the media and elsewhere would accept that the present Government are in exactly the same position.
We live in a world in which more first marriages are preceded by cohabitation than not compared with 2 per cent in the late 1960s. The Government Actuary's projections suggest that the number of cohabiting couples could double over the next two decades. Even where more people marry, four out of 10 marriages are likely to end in divorce. Four out of 10 births now occur outside marriage, although the majority take place with the parents living at the same address.
The reality is that our fellow citizens are choosing in their millions to ignore the advice of family traditionalists in the decisions they make about the way they want to live their lives. I have always thought that a prime duty of government is to analyse the evidence in formulating policy. The Government—any government—simply cannot ignore those facts in producing a family policy. However, the Government do not seem to have been operating in a value-free way. They made clear that in framing family policy they attach great importance to stable relationships; they believe people have the right to live without fear of violence and that the needs of children are paramount.
My noble friend Lord Janner made exactly those points in his quotations. Every discussion in which I have participated with Ministers since 1998 suggests that the Government have kept very much to the position of supporting families. There is no doubt that divorce and separation impact adversely on children, but so do other factors. Most children, in practice, survive the divorce or separation of their parents and adapt successfully to change in their lives. That is because other influences, such as poverty, education, parenting skills and exposure to domestic violence also impact on their lives.
Child poverty is a good example of something that has increased dramatically over the past two decades. Over that period one in three British children lived in households with incomes below 60 per cent of the median. The best route out of poverty for many of those children is for their parents to be employed. Sound economic policy, low unemployment,

1141
reforming the tax and benefit systems to reward working families and a national minimum wage are key elements to a successful family policy. I believe that those are the policies the Government have been successfully pursuing and will have more impact on successful family policy than a lot of empty rhetoric about marriage and about trying to go back to the future.
4.5 p.m.
Baroness Thornton: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Young, for giving the House the opportunity to air its views about marriage and the family at the start of our new year.
It seems to me that the key question here is: are we going to move forward or is this about moving backwards? So my starting point is to ask what we mean by "traditional family values". Are they the traditional family values of the 19th century and before, when a woman and her children effectively belonged to the husband? Are they the traditional family values which include arranged marriages? Are they the tradition of women being expected to give up their job when they marry to enable them to care for their husband? Or are they the traditions of the Church of England which, by and large, does not allow divorced people to remarry under its roof? Or perhaps they are the tradition of multiple pregnancies and back-street abortions from a time when women had no control over their fertility. Or are they the traditions of the Thatcher years and the Conservative government who decided that there was no such thing as "society"?
To take one example of the previous government's record on the family, they removed income support for unemployed 16 year-olds, which placed many poor families under terrible strain, was responsible in some cases for creating family breakdowns and, indeed, put some youngsters on to the streets without home or money.
This debate should be about looking forwards instead of looking backwards to traditional values which I fail to find, except perhaps in the nostalgia of which we are all guilty from time to time, and a state of mind in which the party opposite exists a lot of the time.
Should we not recognise that, at the beginning of the 21st century, marriage and the family are complex and diverse? Complicated relationships and sometimes not always successful marriages exist in the highest families in our land, and for all of us—including noble Lords opposite and my family also. This Government recognise those complexities in their programme. They recognise the importance and value of supporting families and the children in them.
Substantial thought and resources are going into supporting British families. The Government's starting point is that the vast majority of parents, and indeed step-parents, are loving, devoted and ambitious for their children, and that they need support to do their job.
1142
I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Young, needs to inject several things into her laudable aim of supporting the family. She needs to inject a bit of reality about the world as it is. The party opposite needs to inject more honesty about people's relationships into its policies, and a great deal more compassion. Reality, honesty and compassion—all the things which make for a good marriage if we think about it.
4.8 p.m.
Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend Lady Young for instigating this debate and I take this opportunity to thank her for her dedicated support for the preservation of the traditional family.
Such a debate is not only timely but also, with an election approaching, it is one of the most important issues facing the electorate. I say that because I believe that society is judged on how it addresses family matters and the way that that impacts on much wider issues such as the economy, crime, education and health, to mention but a few.
In my view, the people of this country have lost something very precious; that is, leadership on what is a responsible attitude to raising a family. For many years the major political parties supported marriage as the essential building block of a stable society. Today, that alliance appears to have broken down and this Government have drifted away from endorsing that message. It is only the Conservative Party that is wholeheartedly committed to the traditional family and has policies to support it.
The Government, quite rightly, state that families exist in many differing forms, and of course they do. For me, the first and the best is where a man and a woman marry and set up a home together. For those who are lucky enough to have children, I believe that it is even more important for those children to have the chance to grow and develop mentally and physically in as loving and caring an atmosphere as possible, with both parents on hand, but I recognise that that is not always easy.
I grew up in a lone-parent family. My father died and my mother was left to cope. I loved my father dearly and enjoyed that special bond that exists between father and daughter, so I know what I missed when he died. My mother was brilliant. In spite of all the difficulties she faced in war-torn Britain, she made a wonderful home for my brother and me. I owe much to her and the single-minded way she set about being the breadwinner and home-maker. I am glad that she had the pleasure of seeing my brother become a High Court judge and my entry into your Lordships' House. She made us a real family in which we supported each other. I consider that I was lucky to have my parents' example. I am sure that I have not done as well as they did, but I have tried.
I find it disturbing that marriage is declining, divorces are increasing, and more and more people are cohabiting. Most depressing of all, 22 per cent of children were born outside marriage in 1997 compared

1143
with only 2 per cent 20 years earlier. As a consequence of those and other factors, the number of lone-parent families has almost quadrupled.
I was deeply concerned when the Government withdrew the married couples' allowance except for pensioners. I am delighted that my party has pledged to restore it. The attitude of the Government over Section 28 continues to worry me as, once again, it undermines marriage. Perhaps I may add that as a past branch chairman of the NSPCC, I was horrified by the attitude of the society over Section 28. I hope that it will not continue to spend 46 per cent of its income on campaigning and only 37 per cent on the wonderful front-line work it does for abused children.
We eagerly await the White Paper on the family. Recent press speculation suggests that the Prime Minister has been lobbied by colleagues not to follow their former assertions that,
"marriage is still the surest foundation for rearing children".
It is suggested that that is because many of his colleagues fear press intrusion into their private lives. If that is so, I am deeply saddened. As my noble friend Lord Ferrers said, surely it is right to strive for the best, whatever the press may say. I hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will be able to assure us that the Government do believe that marriage, and only marriage, is best.
4.14 p.m.
The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Young, for this opportunity to discuss the well-being of our families. I am convinced that marriage is a very important means for improving the welfare of children. The process of marriage aids couples to be clear in their intentions to one another and to consider the full implications of starting a family and the responsibilities entailed, as the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, so clearly communicated.
For that reason, I applaud the practical measures to strengthen families put forward in the Government's paper Supporting Families. I recognise that marriage is not a part of the experience of many families. It is unacceptable to stigmatise those families and their children—a point the Government have often made. In such a situation I am not clear what more can be done to promote marriage. I note, however, the power of a good example. Could governments not set the right example of long-term commitment; that commitment which marriage encourages and which I believe we would all want to be the goal of those who want to be parents, married or otherwise?
Your Lordships may be aware of the fate of Anna Climbie, a young girl who died of hypothermia following prolonged neglect and malnutrition last year. One of her abusers said,
"You could beat her and she would not cry at all. She could take the beatings and pain like anything".
The social worker and woman police constable in the case were described as blindingly incompetent. Several opportunities to remove Anna from torture were missed. However, I should like to draw attention to an
1144
article in The Times on Saturday, January 13th this year which noted that Haringey Social Services had suffered a 24 per cent budget cut and was run by inexperienced staff. Indeed, the social workers unit was at half strength, with 33 per cent of its management posts vacant. The article goes on to state that the WPC worked for another struggling unit, Haringey Child Protection, which covered one of London's most deprived boroughs yet lacked key staff. The woman police constable had not had full training and had no CID experience.
Is it not right to deduce that one of the important factors in Anna's death was the under-investment in police and social services? I think that my noble friend Lord Northbourne will probably confirm that social workers are often frustrated in their work by impossible caseloads. Chronic under-investment has resulted in staff shortages.
There are now 6,900 households in bed-andbreakfast accommodation in London. a number which has risen steeply in recent years. There are more households in temporary accommodation now than at any time since the late 1970s. We invest a lower percentage of our gross domestic product in public services than most of our European neighbours. We also have the highest divorce rate in 'western Europe, as has been said, and the highest rate of teenage pregnancies. The United States invests about 9 per cent less of its gross domestic product in public services than ourselves and has far higher divorce and teenage pregnancy rates. Its infant mortality rate is 7.8 per thousand live births. The rate in this country is 5.9 per thousand. In France and Germany it is 4.8 per thousand and in Norway it is four per thousand.
If governments of whatever complexion think in the long-term best interests of their citizens and provide prudent, sustained, sufficient investment in good public services, they will be setting an example which should pervade all society, including, of course, our families. They would also be providing services which help families to thrive. If one is to behave ethically, it is helpful to be in an environment where one does not think of the immediate gratification of urgent needs, particularly in the most disadvantaged families.
4.18 p.m.
Lord Paul: My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Young, for initiating this important debate. Traditional family values seem to have become inextricably linked with marriage. In the environment in which I was raised they are two very different things. The Indian concept of Vasudeva Kathumbkam, meaning "the world is one family", informs our relationships with everyone. It extends beyond one's relatives to include friends, neighbours and work colleagues. I believe in and support that concept. One of the reasons why Asians have been so successful in this country is strong family ties.
Unfortunately, that definition of family values is being rapidly eroded everywhere, even in Indian communities. In my view, we should make more effort to restore those values. Marriage is only one part of

1145
family values. Marriage means a relationship between husband and wife, and it should certainly be encouraged. However, we know that this relationship is under strain. What is also true is that not all children born to married parents are planned or wanted. Far too many children are born almost by accident. In those circumstances, we cannot keep saying that a stable male/female partnership is the only suitable way to bring up children.
The Family Service Unit, an NGO of which I am president, has centres throughout the country and it deals with these issues almost on a daily basis. It is doing tremendous work. It shares the belief that marriage provides a reliable and stable framework for most families for the successful raising of children. However, there is the need for a clear distinction to be made between positive relationships and formal marital status in families.
In FSU's experience, formal status such as marriage can be misused in power struggles, including domestic violence between parents, to the detriment of children and mothers. One has to recognise and respect the diversity of family life in Britain in the 21st century, where only one-fifth of households are made up of a married couple with dependent children and where nearly one-quarter of our children—around 3 million—live in single-parent families.
In FSU's long experience, many kinds of families can provide a loving and secure environment. What is important is that children are brought up within consistent boundaries, receiving love, care and attention. One in four of our children are brought up in poverty. Poverty is both a cause and a consequence of family breakdown, but its effects are damaging to everyone.
Surely, therefore, resources would be better employed in eliminating child poverty than trying to decide what culturally specific type of family is best equipped for the task of parenting. Most of all, we must ensure that no child grows up feeling excluded because he or she is unwanted.
4.22 p.m.
Baroness Platt of Writtle: My Lords, first, I must declare an interest, having enjoyed contented married life with my husband for more than 50 years. Our children have equally contented 15-year marriages. "Contented" does not always mean placid or perfect. During the bad patches, it is important to remember that the other donkey's grass is not necessarily greener, despite appearances; nor does it mean that we have never had a cross word. Utopia does not exist, and of course there will be cases where, sadly, separation becomes inevitable. But it is vital that parents should act responsibly and stay together whenever possible.
People celebrating their diamond wedding—today it is that of John and Mary Mills—say, "There should always be plenty of give and take", or, "Don't let the sun go down on your wrath". Proverbs may be old-fashioned but they always contain a good deal of truth.
1146
Returning to cross words, or even rows, it is good for children to see their parents disagree, lose their tempers but make it up and be good friends the next day. No one is always right.
Last week, we went to the pantomime, "Peter Pan", with our youngest granddaughter at Southend. It was a packed house and an excellent performance. After Captain Hook had been trounced by Peter Pan and the crocodile, Peter Pan, Wendy and all the Lost Boys who had no parents arrived back on the roofs of London by the Darling's house. Peter invited Wendy back to the Never-Never Land but she refused. She wanted to stay with her parents and grow up.
Mrs Darling invited all the Lost Boys to stay with her family too and they all said, "Yes, please", much to the great sadness of Peter Pan. Mrs Darling said, "All children need two parents; a mother and a father", which is what attracted the Lost Boys.
Some people say that such statements devalue single-parent families. Having coped with a single-parent family in our own extended family, I know that that is not true. The Lost Boys recognised that if they had the chance of two parents they should grasp it and grow up in the most desirable situation. There is a lot of truth in old-fashioned fairy stories, too.
Children cannot choose their parents. Parents choose to have children and after that they owe those children the responsibility of bringing them up to the best of their ability together, difficult though that may be at times. Many of our problems in society would be reduced considerably if that sense of responsibility were more universally put into action, as my noble friend Lady Young emphasised.
4.25 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford: My Lords, this is an important debate because it touches on the very health, stability and cohesiveness of our society. As we have been reminded, we have the highest divorce rate in Europe, with children often the main casualties. Statistics, which are about real people, show us that children of a broken marriage often follow the same pattern as their parents.
The family can be the place where the world acquires a human face and where order and values for living can be acquired and tested. It is the crucible of our humanity. Recently, though, I was chatting to a group of young prisoners and asking them what kind of support they were receiving from their families and what help they were likely to receive when they had completed their sentences. "No support", was the immediate answer of a number of the prisoners.
Strengthening the place of marriage and the family as the bulwark of society is a major concern of many people today. Yet while successive governments have recognised the huge social problems created by marital and familial breakdown, the response has often been ambivalent, and a discernible timidity evident in giving too strong an emphasis to the prior importance of marriage and family life lest other relationships should not be given appropriate support. An obvious example, already referred to, is the Government's

1147
persistent refusal to restore tax concessions for married couples as a symbol that society values marriage. Yet this would be another positive step following the Government's 1999 consultation document, Supporting Families, which has resulted in an information pack soon to be distributed by the National Family and Parenting Institute and made available to all couples who want to get married.
In the House of Bishops' teaching document, which is currently being discussed in many parts of the Church of England, the house summarised its understanding of marriage as,
"a pattern that God has given in Creation, deeply rooted in our social instincts … life-long marriage … the bedrock of a rapidly changing society … sexual intercourse, as an expression of faithful intimacy, properly belongs within marriage exclusively … marriage is a school of patience and forgiveness … by it a new unit of society is created … So that the weakening of marriage has serious implications for the mutual belonging and care that is exercised within the community at large".
I could go on, but the document costs only £1 and is well worth reading.
I recognise that verbal support for marriage and the family is easily given but not so easily delivered. Practical support for people, rather than gesture politics and brandishing slogans, is urgently needed.
Unfortunately, concern for marriage and the family often comes too late. We have already been reminded that the cost of picking up the pieces of broken relationships is huge. In comparison, this year only £4 million has been made available for marriage and relationship support. I long to see that funding substantially increased to give support to the groups and organisations that try to cope with the many demands upon them for the help that they provide. I have in mind the growth in the numbers of parenting groups and students who explore marriage projects, community family projects and so on.
The Chief Rabbi, Jonathan Sacks, has written:
"It took us a long time for us to realise that by cutting down rain forests, using cars with highly leaded fuels and building factories with toxic emissions we were gradually destroying the ecosystem within which we live and breath. We know now. It has been much harder for us to realise that by destabilising marriage and accepting casual sex, serial relationships, divorce and single parenthood as norms, we are rapidly eroding the social structures on which humanity depends, but it is no less true".
I conclude by identifying with the statement made recently by the Archbishop of Westminster. He made a plea to Ministers in relation to the forthcoming White Paper on the family that they should not be,
"afraid to put marriage and family life at its very heart, and it will then be supported by the vast majority of people in this country".
4.32 p.m.
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall: My Lords, I join other noble Lords in thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Young, for introducing this fascinating debate. I found it hard to prepare for it because I was not entirely sure of the thrust of the debate. The debate has produced a number of familiar matters as well as some surprises. I do not represent any special interest group. I regret that I do not have a strong religious faith but, like others, I am convinced that marriage should be
1148
supported. Marriage is still an essential part of good social organisation and is also a way for two people to make a public commitment to each other. Clearly, the public nature of that commitment is an important part of its significance.
I intend no disrespect to the institution of marriage when I say that one of its primary purposes was., and to some extent remains, the acquisition and protection of property. We should remember that historically it has been an economic partnership as well as everything else. However, in the nature of this debate I do not want to concentrate so much on marriage as on family values. I refer in particular to the appeal of the noble Baroness, Lady Young, to tradition. I have a problem with the notion of tradition as it applies to social policy. By definition, it is retrospective and, in the general sense, conservative. I should like to speak for those who, like myself, have not had a traditional family background and have experienced at first hand the damage that can be done by rigid adherence to social convention masquerading as family values.
I agree with a good deal of the remarks made on this subject by my noble friend Lord Janner, who is not now in his place. I do not look back with any nostalgia to the atmosphere of shame and secrecy that surrounded marriage breakdown when I grew up. It had a profoundly traumatising effect on my family and many others. When I compare it with the experience of my own children, I feel only relief that they were born when they were. For all the pain of their parents' divorce, which I regret, they at least have maintained a close relationship with both parents and their half-siblings. I never knew mine. I think back with horror to my discovery, when searching through the records of a mental hospital, that one of my mother's relatives had been incarcerated for the whole of her adult life because she had become pregnant when unmarried. No doubt the noble Baroness, Lady Young, would tell me that upholding tradition and family values should not imply cruelty of that kind but, not uncommonly, it did. I do not regret the passing of such a world.
The family values in which I believe, and am glad to see reflected in the Government's development of social and educational policy, are based on tolerance and respect for the great diversity of human relationships and the many ways in which people can support each other and create a healthy environment in which children can grow up. We must not jettison ideas and values just because they are not new. We must reflect upon the past and pay proper attention to lessons that can be learnt from it, but we must no: be sentimental and selective about it. We must live in the world as it is, and not as we should like it to be.
4.36 p.m.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, one of the most worrying features of the decline in marriage and the traditional family unit is its effect on the more deprived people in our society. So often in this debate we forget that the most profound effects are felt not by the more sophisticated but by the least sophisticated in our society. For six years I served on the Parole Board. One of my duties was to interview prisoners and write

1149
an assessment of their suitability for parole. I saw hundreds of prisoners who for the most part were serving five to seven years in some of the major prisons in this country. Almost without exception, their backgrounds followed similar patterns. They had been born to unmarried couples whose relationships had collapsed. Their mothers had then been involved in a series of relationships. They never experienced a stable family situation and their careers had been truancy from school and drugs, followed by minor and then major crime. Often at 16 they had conceived a child themselves who repeated that history. I do not believe that it is fanciful to view the collapse of the family as a factor in that lifestyle.
I respect the views of the noble Lord, Lord Janner, and the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh. I do not suggest for a moment that all single parents produce criminals, but thousands of people have had their lives altered in this way. I accept that sometimes in the past the structures of society have been oppressive, but we should also pay attention to the contemporary situation with the emphasis on individual rights rather than social structures which have been the cement of society in past ages. It is possible that emphasis on individual rights rather than social cohesion causes even more trouble than some of the oppressive patterns of the past. It is believed that it would be wrong for the Government to stress the importance of marriage as against other relationships. The fact is that, as noble Lords know, governments have a duty to influence society by what they say and the laws they implement.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, has, like me, read Dicey's Lectures on the Relationship Between Law and Public Opinion in England during the 19th Century and knows the effect of law. A recent article in the Financial Times summed up modern reality in terms of Burger King's advertisement, "Have It Your Way". People now insist on doing their own thing and not being limited by family structures or external rules of the past. In this they defy history. We are moving into a new environment for which we have no maps and guidance. If we see marriage as only one form of relationship that is no better than others, cultural relativism of that kind is most destructive to the less sophisticated members of our society. Some of the casualties are the prisoners I interviewed, and we must bear part of the responsibility for the society that has produced people like that. I share the experience of the right reverend Prelate. Those people told me that they could expect no support from their dysfunctional families when they left prison.
Stability, order and the example of lifetime commitment are good things. They are not always realised, but that is not enough to throw it all out. Like the noble Lord, Lord Janner, a Pauline who respects toleration, I believe in toleration. I believe in not attacking, but that does not mean rejecting the values that have supported his Jewish society and my society for many generations.
4.40 p.m.
Lord Moran: My Lords, I must first declare an interest in that I have had the good fortune to be blissfully happily married for 52 years.
Those of us who joined the noble Baroness, Lady Young, in opposing the Family Law Act 1996 which introduced no fault divorce will not be surprised that it has been found defective in practice and will welcome the decision announced yesterday by the Lord Chancellor to repeal the greater part of it.
I believe strongly in the importance of lifelong marriage and close family ties in building the sort of society we need in this country. I know that there are many who, for one reason or the other, have the misfortune to be denied that. Many of them, single mothers especially, struggle to bring up children, difficult though this is for one person. But for society at large I believe we should hold up the ideal of a happily married two-parent family, and for all married couples divorce while they have young and dependent children should normally be unthinkable.
It is for individuals to work out their own lives. Neither the Government nor anyone else can dictate to them how they should behave. But the Government can do something to help and encourage a way of life that contributes to a good society, and, above all, an environment in which our children can grow up loved and cherished and feeling protected and secure. I am dismayed that the Government are doing so little to promote that. Although I welcome the announcement yesterday by the Lord Chancellor about funding marriage and relationship support, I still think that the signals that the Government send out do not suggest that encouraging marriage is one of their priorities. For example, they have abolished the married persons allowance, and the present tax and benefit systems provide little incentive to those who may contemplate marriage.
We know that the Prime Minister is a family man who, from his own experience, must wish to encourage marriage as the basis of a good society. But it is reported that he and those of his colleagues who share his views, like Mr Boateng, have been overridden by others, including, apparently, the Leader of this House, who have, it is suggested, persuaded him that it is a mistake to promote marriage and that it is better to talk about stable relationships, which of course cover a multitude of sins. I hope that the reports are wrong and that the Prime Minister will stick to his guns.
Nowadays a great number of women go out to work and leave their children with nannies if they are very rich, and in day nurseries if they are not. They often have impressive careers and their talents are fully used as they were not in the past. But there may be a price to pay, for even the best paid helper cannot wholly replace a natural mother in looking after a child.
With modern technology it is increasingly practicable to work full or part-time from home. So more and more women may in future be able to care for their own children and do a good job at the same time.

1151
We all know that there are many things wrong with our society. We have the highest rate of divorce in Europe. There are the great and growing number of teenage pregnancies and more and more reports of abuse of children by live-in partners and of young people driven out of their homes to live rough on the streets or join violent teenage gangs.
Unhappily, sooner or later, nearly all children are exposed to offers of drugs, suggestive magazines and opportunities for promiscuity. State schools are now apparently adopting the lamentable expedient of giving the "morning after" pill to 11 or 12 year old girls without informing their parents. These various temptations are all too likely to result in nothing but unhappiness and damaged health. Children are most likely to resist them if they have been brought up in a happy home and are constantly reminded of the need to choose right rather than wrong.
The Government can perhaps help by restoring more single-sex schools where there is less pressure to impress the other sex, and by making sure that those who have illegitimate babies are not promptly rewarded by being propelled to the top of the housing list.
Generally, we need to take a stand against the decline in standards and the collapse of morals. Children are usually quick to know what is expected of them and if high standards are expected they often respond in a remarkable way. We do not want them to wallow in the mud but to set their sights on the stars. I believe it will help a great deal if we point the way to a happy, lifelong marriage as the best way of meeting the trials and tribulations of life and so ensure that our children are given the best possible start.
4.45 p.m.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I rise to offer strong support for the defence of lifelong marriage expressed so ably by the previous speaker and, of course, by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, in a memorable speech. In half a century I cannot remember a better speech, although I suppose that people who were in your Lordships' House 50 or 100 years ago will say that Lord Keynes reached that standard when he defended the American loans. Anyway, it was a memorable speech.
I am glad to be followed by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, who is my spiritual boss in the sense that he presides over the prayer group that I attend. I know that he will stop me before someone else does if I go beyond the four minutes. I rise to ask a simple question of everyone, Christian or non-Christian. If they were asked whether they would prefer their children to have happy lifelong marriages or deviate in some way—perhaps daughters being left as lone mothers or sons becoming homosexual or having all kinds of fun and games in other ways—I am sure that the answer would be that they would rather see their children in lifelong happy marriages.
We have some wonderful examples of marital devotion. The most obvious one is the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan. We are told that he sits beside his
1152
beautiful wife Audrey, who is not too well these days, and never leaves her side. That is real devotion. The Prime Minister is an excellent example of marriage.
Now I become a little timid. I have to mention the fact that—surprise, surprise—I have been married for 69 years. I do not boast of that too much. The last time I said that to someone, he said, "That is nothing. My parents have been married for 75 years". So it is no good boasting about these things. Nevertheless, I have been happily married for 69 years. If people ask how I won the attention of the most popular girl of her time, I can only say that it was divine providence. So providence and luck come in. Therefore, one cannot attribute everything to virtue when one only has merit. But that is all I say. I can only hope for everyone here that their children and grandchildren and great grandchildren—I have quite a few in each category—will have long happy lifelong marriages.
The difficulty with defending marriage most strongly is that there are many good people who have not had my good fortune. Some very dear to me have found fulfilment in their second marriages. In particular there is one man whom I admire. known to everyone in this country—I shall not mention his name now—who has been involved in a happy partnership for some years. No one can say that I am a better man than he. Of course I do not say that. There are others too—homosexuals—who lead very good lives. So we must not condemn others; we must sympathise with them. I am only saying that I strongly believe that marriage is best and that everyone really thinks the same, whatever they may say at the moment.
4.49 p.m.
Lord Elton: My Lords, like my noble friend Lady Platt of Writtle, I declare an interest as the father of four children. But sadly it is of a different kind because their mother and I separated after 13 years, which was eight years after the youngest child was born. We divorced and I remarried six years later. But I can see no reason why that should prevent me from supporting the contention of my noble friend Lady Young that marriage is the best environment in which to raise children.
I had a nasty motor accident when I was in my early thirties. That has certainly not stopped me advising young people to drive carefully. I see an analogy there. To argue against my noble friend because I had failed to provide my own children with the best would be to fly in the face of truth. The Government are not bringing that truth unequivocally to the notice of intending parents.
Every generation has a duty to pass to the next what it has learnt. The more valuable the lesson, the more urgent the duty. When we bring up children we are preparing them for the world in which they are going to live as adults. That world is morally, as well as physically, more dangerous now than the world of the 1950s into, or before, which the whole of the present Cabinet was born. It is certainly more materialist. During a period which historians will doubtless describe as stable, there has been a series of four revolutions of enormous importance to children.

1153
The credit revolution was launched by the introduction of credit cards, with the profoundly revealing slogan "Taking the waiting out of wanting". I commend that slogan to your Lordships' prolonged thought as to its effect. The communications revolution which accompanied it elevated children under the age of 10 to the status of a powerful market sector targeted on television advertising. It has also removed from all but diligent parents, and even from some of them, the control of their children's access to wholly inappropriate media channels and programmes. The sexual revolution, regarded as some kind of liberation in the 1960s, has been rendered incalculably more dangerous by the advent of AIDS. The drugs revolution has brought prohibited and sometimes lethal substances within their unsupervised reach. All this in a world in which moral standards themselves are seen by some as at best optional and by others as irrelevant.
Each of these revolutions produced a new threat to children. None of them was in place when the whole of the Cabinet or any of my contemporaries were brought up. The world is more dangerous for children now than it was then and you would think that we collectively, and the Government above all, would be doing our utmost to provide them with the best possible protection. That, both research and scripture assure us, is provided by the caring and protective circle of a stable marriage. The lamentable fact is that in the year 2000 fewer children received that protection than received it in 1950, before the revolutions.
What has brought all this about? Why is our society changing in this way? However you try to focus the lines that lead you to that cause, somewhere very near it you find an enormous rise in selfishness and a decline in the teaching of the virtues of unselfishness and courage. I was brought up during the war when those virtues were essential to the survival of the country. It is not surprising that they were instilled rigorously in me. That is perhaps why I still soldier on in your Lordships' Chamber. The fact is that the generality of our society no longer looks up to people for unselfish acts or self-control. Without those, no marriage will survive.
4.53 p.m.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Young, for the opportunity to participate in today's debate and I look forward to debating with the noble Lord, Lord Moran, the use of technology in your Lordships' House to allow this mother of school-age children to spend more time with her children.
Like many noble Lords, I am a huge fan of marriage, believing that it can provide a strong and stable framework for adults and children alike, but I am a far greater fan of the family values that we attribute to it. For me, these values are based around the nurturing and care of all members of the family, especially the children; providing stability and education for all, especially the children; and raising
1154
the children to take seriously their responsibilities to themselves and others, especially their own children and children in their care. Those values should be paramount. But they need not be found, and indeed are not always found, within the structure of marriage. Families come in different shapes and sizes; and whether one believes that is to be celebrated or lamented, it is reality.
What matters in all families is that the children are brought up securely, safely and responsibly. The shape or size of the family does not seem to me to be terribly important if at the end of childhood there is a responsible, mature and happy individual. Congratulations would then seem to be in order.
I am not, though, complacent about family life. The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, recounted the story of Anna Climbie, placed in the care of her great aunt. The newspapers recalled the roll of dishonour of high profile cases of children neglected or murdered by those who should have loved and cared for them. Those are extreme and relatively rare cases. But they reawaken in us real concern that some children are at the mercy of those who have no understanding of or regard for their welfare.
I wonder whether we do enough as a society to prepare people for the variety of family models in which they may well live in their lifetimes and the different expectations that will be placed on them. It feels to me on occasion that our emphasis on the image of a single model of marriage rather than on the underlying values can sometimes get in the way, leaving people totally unprepared for the situations in which they may find themselves. As the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington of Oxenford, said, there are no maps.
Upon my marriage, I became a full-time step-parent and have been so for the past 13 years. The only model I or my stepchildren had was of the wicked stepmother in "Cinderella" or "Snow White", until, that is, some very helpful Hollywood studio brought out a film entitled "My Stepmother is an Alien", to the great delight of my children, I hasten to add. More seriously, in the 13 years that I have played this role, I have never been visited to see whether the children were being brought up okay. On many occasions I would have welcomed the kind of support that is best personified by health visitors who help new mothers to understand their offspring and to discover how to be a parent. I would have liked help with how to organise an eight year-old's birthday party from a knowledge base of zero. More importantly, I would have liked someone to talk to me about the not so good times in that role.
Taken to extremes, if we do not provide good role models, support systems and understanding about what is expected of them, then we set people up to fail; and failure in family life can be only bad news for our children. That is why I support the teaching of parenting and of citizenship in schools and why I support so many of the Government's measures. As we reflect on our traditional family values, perhaps it is time to look at how we educate and support people to play a variety of family roles; how we offer support to adults who increasingly find themselves operating in

1155
families that are complicated to explain, never mind participate in; how we provide support to children put into different family groupings and ensure that they are being cared for properly; and what role our health and social services can play, and what role government can play, in supporting these new families. In doing so, I believe that we would be promoting the best of family values, to keep our children safe.
4.57 p.m.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I rise only to apologise for not being in my place when my turn came to speak in the debate. Owing to a misunderstanding over the telephone, I was convinced that this debate was the second debate. Therefore, I shall not speak this afternoon. In the unlikely event that any noble Lords are interested in my views, they will have to contain their impatience until next week, when we have a debate, in which I have an interest, on the subject of the problems of sons without fathers.
4.58 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, when I saw the reference to "traditional family values" in the Motion for today's debate I was reminded of a sentence in my grandmother's diary for 1864. She wrote:
"The Miss Berries are rather old fashioned. They swear a little".
That makes the point that tradition is a little more cyclical and a little less linear in its progress than perhaps we sometimes imagine.
On the subject of tradition, the noble Baronesses, Lady Thornton and Lady McIntosh, have spoken for me, but I think it is proper that it falls to me, and not to them, to say how much the stability of marriage in past times has rested on the economic dependence of women. It has rested on the fact that they have not had the choice of leaving. I remember an 18th century epitaph:
"Here lies Mary, the wife of John Ford,
We hope her soul has gone to the Lord.
But if for the other she quitted this life,
She had better be there than be John Ford's wife".
If the greater frequency of divorce means that that situation is not so often repeated, I for one cannot bring myself to regret it. I do not believe that there are any more unhappy marriages now than there were in the 17th century. I cannot sustain that opinion but, equally, I believe that no one can refute it. A marriage may end in divorce, but sometimes it is better to be divorced than to be in a bad marriage. I agree with St Augustine that the corruption of the best is the worst. That proposition applies as much to marriage as it does to many other things.
We have here a very longstanding difference between the party of the noble Baroness, Lady Young, and my own party. It goes back at least three centuries. Her party was dedicated to the promotion and encouragement of uniformity. From the beginning, my party was dedicated to the management of diversity. This applied originally to issues of religion. The Tory Party identified itself as the party of the
1156
Church. It is a fact that we had no fewer churchmcn on our Benches than did that party, as the career of Gladstone may well illustrate. But we were not in favour of monopoly. It is that objection to the monopoly, not a lesser loyalty to the Church, which still applies today. Professor John Curtice has found that my party contains among its activists more regular churchgoers than does any other party in the country. As one who is an unbeliever and does not regret the fact, perhaps I may say that I am delighted by that fact. I respect the liberty of their consciences for the same reason that they respect the liberty of mine. There is a common respect for pluralism and diversity, which is what holds us together. Worse things could hold us together.
What has happened in our lifetimes is one of the revolutions that the noble Lord, Lord Elton. did not mention; namely, the advent of reliable contraception. That has changed the underlying basis of sexual morals as totally as printing has changed education, or gunpowder and nuclear weapons have changed warfare. It will never be the same again. One may regret that, or one may—as I do?—welcome it. Either way, things will never be the same again and nothing can be done about that.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I know that this is a short debate and so I shall be brief. Recently I have received literature which exposes the fact that supposedly reliable contraception in the form of condoms is, statistically, not at all reliable.
Earl Russell: My Lords, at this stage I do not wish to enter into a semantic debate about the precise statistical meaning of "reliability". They are certainly a very great deal more reliable, and are a great deal more relied on, than anything that went before them.
The rethinking that this development demands is one which is to be done by private individuals. It is not a matter for the state. It is a matter for the individual conscience. Long ago we learnt that the state cannot create faith. Equally, the state cannot create love. Once we accept that, I think that we must accept that this is a matter for the private conscience.
My right honourable friend Mr Kennedy recently remarked that family life and the way we raise our children are private matters. If we understand the purposes of the state, that is clear enough. The purposes of the state are to keep the peace; to give people the opportunity to fulfil their potential in the way they choose; and to give them liberty wherein they do no harm to others. The noble Lord, Lord Pilkington of Oxenford, claims that it was a government's duty to influence people towards behaviour of which a government approved. I simply do not agree with that. It is hard enough for government to do their own job without trying to do ours for us.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords—
Earl Russell: My Lords, I am sorry, but this is a timed debate and I really cannot accept any more interventions. I have never refused an intervention before and I am sorry to have to do it now.

1157
I think that the noble Lord was about to refer to children. It is a legitimate point. John Stuart Mill once remarked that just because we allow others power over themselves, therefore we are the more willing to restrict the power they may have over others. To protect children against cruelty or to defend their right to education is perfectly proper for the state. But here I come to the other limit of the state, not just that it is ultra vires, but to the limits of the state's competence. The state cannot know exactly what is happening inside an individual family. It cannot take our moral decisions for us for exactly the same reasons that it cannot reach clinical decisions in medicine or make academic judgments in education.
I hear the statistics about the effects of divorce on children. I know something of this from my own experience. But the question is: what do those statistics show? They may show no more than that, all other things being equal, children fare better with happy parents than with unhappy parents. If we compare the children of divorced parents with the children of happily married parents, we are not comparing like with like. What we need to do to achieve a statistical comparison is to compare the children of divorced parents with the children of unhappy parents who have remained married. I know from my teaching experience that that can do a great deal of harm. The statistical basis for such comparison would be extremely difficult. Until we can achieve it, a certain amount of hesitation ought to be in order.
We have heard much in this debate about the married couples' tax allowance. So far as I am concerned, marriages are made in heaven and divorces are made in hell. In neither case can the state do much about it. For the state to attempt to persuade people to live in one particular way is ultra vires. What is more, I speak as one who has been 38 years married and never for a moment regretted it. However, when I compare my own relationship with that of my two sisters-in-law, who have lived as unmarried partners, the reason why I cannot assert a superiority is that I cannot perceive a difference.
Were we to be talking about a marriage in church, I would understand that. It is clearly a different type of animal. But marriage in a register office is a social recognition. A civil partnership—in which my party is pioneering the way—is also a social recognition of a partnership. Between one form of social recognition and another, I really cannot see any significant difference. I enjoy marriage, but I believe that if it is as good as the noble Baroness, Lady Young, has said, it is perfectly capable of surviving without the benefit of a tariff barrier.
I shall conclude on the question of the morning-after pill. I am glad that the Government have done what they have. Anyone who argues that it is right to inflict an unwanted pregnancy on an underage girl is putting forward a cruelty which, in my mind, does not deserve the name of morality.
5.8 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, once again, I join other Members of the House to congratulate my noble friend Lady Young on setting out so clearly the case for marriage and the family. Recently my noble friend has been deservedly recognised by a number of awards for her stand on moral issues affecting the family and children, on which I congratulate her most warmly. However, what is so remarkable about my noble friend is the dignified, courageous and resolute way she has withstood much aggressive criticism, intimidation and even ridicule.
It has been suggested by some that those who hold fast to the belief that marriage is the key building block of society and of its importance in family life and in the bringing up of children in some way reflect a generational gap and that they do not speak for the young. I do not accept that. Many surveys have shown that young people support marriage. In any case, most of us are mothers—some are grandparents—and we are thus very much in touch with young people. My noble friend Lady Young should not be daunted by such criticisms. I say thank God for her wise counsel on such fundamental issues. As I have listened to a number of references to fathers, I am reminded of Lady Macleod, a great Member of this House who is no longer with us. She devoted her life to charity, and especially to the organisation Children Need Fathers. Her valuable contributions to our debates echoed in my mind today as the debate progressed.
When making judgments about others, I prefer to compare what they say with what they do. In a consultation document, Supporting Families, the Government said,
"marriage is still the surest foundation for raising families".
The noble Lord, Lord Janner, referred to the same quotation. My understanding—which is why I mention it—is that the emphasis on marriage contained within that phrase will not appear in the final document.
Noble Lords should contrast that statement with the number of policies which have been given priority by the Government in recent times. One really must challenge the sincerity of the Government on these issues. There has been, for example, the abolition of the married couples' allowance. The Government have imposed the lowering of the age of consent for homosexuality and have removed the protection for girls from buggery at the age of 16—both measures being imposed by the use of the Parliament Act before the Bill had completed its passage through both Houses. It was a constitutional outrage.
The Government are making available the morning-after pill over the counter at pharmacies and are allowing girls as young as 11 to receive the morning-after pill free on demand at school and without informing their parents. If I were a parent of an 11 year-old now, I would be mortified at the idea of that confidentiality withholding such information from me as a parent. What kind of message is it that confirms that you can do what you like as long as you either wear a condom or take the morning-after pill?

1159
The Government, no doubt, will continue with their efforts to repeal the ban on promoting homosexuality to children in school. The Government have also produced guidelines to schools advocating role-playing by children involving gay, lesbian, transvestite and other complex sexuality situations.
Then we have the refusal by the Government to accept bringing under the abuse of trust sections of the Sexual Offences Act thousands of mentors created by the Learning and Skills Act, who will be working closely in one-to-one relationships with vulnerable children.
I could go on. It is a very strange list of priorities which does little to support marriage and the family. The Government cannot continue to wring their hands over the growing number of insecure children, the growing crime levels among young people, the costs of family breakdown, the levels of teenage pregnancy and the growing number of children requiring care, and yet duck the issue of recognising marriage as a more stable alternative to other relationships.
It is no secret that members of the Government, led by the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, and Ms Tessa Jowell, have argued strongly to play down the promotion of marriage in public policy. They see it as no more or less significant than any other family relationship, unlike some of their other colleagues, such as Mr David Blunkett, Mr Jack Straw and Mr Paul Boateng, who take a more pro-marriage viewpoint.
From what we all read and hear, the noble Baroness and her supporters, including the Prime Minister, have won that battle. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will clarify the specific status of marriage in the forthcoming White Paper.
It has also been said that, because the present Cabinet Ministers' lives do not bear public scrutiny, to follow the scientific research and accept—not pontificate or direct—that marriage is the best form of relationship for a country economically and socially and for bringing up children, would expose Cabinet Members to public ridicule and the charge of hypocrisy. But human frailty or disadvantage serves only to strengthen, not weaken, the message.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury. He made the distinction that marriage—which involves a very public commitment made in the company of friends and family, bringing with it obligations and duties—is not equal to other forms of relationships. I agree with him that that does not disparage other forms of relationships.
The breakdown of family life impacts on all aspects of our lives. There are all too many children who do not enjoy a happy and loving home life; all too many children who live within very transient parental relationships; and all too many children who have no framework within which to grow and develop, and who have no basic rules by which to live a fruitful and fulfilling lifestyle. Putting marriage and the family at the heart of policy should not be abandoned because of the private lives of Cabinet Ministers. The interests of children—and subsequently the quality of life
1160
enjoyed by our children as they grow to become parents—will be better served if public policy supports marriage and the family.
It takes courage to ignore personal ridicule in favour of doing the right thing by our children. Let us hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will announce today that marriage and the family will be restored as the surest foundation for raising families, as was set out in the Government's own consultation document. I support my noble friend.
5.15 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, support for families is at the core of this Government's policies. Strong and stable families are essential to the wellbeing of our society. They provide the young with that fair start in life which should be the birthright of every child.
However, the state can do only so much. It cannot make people happy, but it can provide the circumstances which make happiness more obtainable. In particular—my noble friend Lady Crawley drew attention to this—it can ensure that families are freed from the ache of daily poverty and social exclusion. That is why we passed the minimum wage, a measure which has done so much to underpin the cohesion of family life. It recognised the damage which could be done to families by poverty wages.
Let it be remembered that the benefits of the minimum wage gave most help to the unskilled and part-time workforce, who are predominantly women. This is no accident. We have always recognised that, especially in poor families, it is the woman who is the financial mainstay. It is she who manages the family budget and juggles the finances to ensure the children do not suffer.
It was disappointing, therefore, to find that the party opposite fought this measure through the House, clause by clause and line by line. Those opposite who speak of family values could try to explain how their opposition to the minimum wage enhanced the position of families in our society. Of course, they have changed their mind since—and we welcome all sinners come to repentance—but I am still quite sure that the British people will remember the role that they played in opposing the legislation, and act accordingly when the time comes.
It is because we believe that financial security is the bedrock of family stability that the Chancellor has brought forward a range of measures targeted at those in greatest need. Its aim is to end the scourge of child poverty, which is at its most acute in households where no one works. Tax and benefit measures have lifted 1 million children out of poverty in the life of this Parliament. Increases in child benefit, the working families' tax credit and the New Deal for lone parents have one common aim—to free our people from poverty and to give our children a better future than their parents. It is a pity that, once again, the party opposite opposed these measures. Its record, I am sure, will not go unnoticed by the British people when the time comes.

1161
However, not all children have the inestimable blessing of a happy home. For some, family life is disfigured by cruelty and neglect. These most vulnerable children deserve society's greatest concern. They are entitled to look to the Government for help and, in extreme cases, for rescue. The Government believe that the best people to care for children are their parents. The state, it has been said, cannot improve on nature. Provided that its welfare is secure, a child is happiest in its own home. But for those children where parental abuse or neglect is such that arrangements for their upbringing have to be made outside the family, the Government believe that being brought up in an adopted family is, in many cases, far preferable to life in a children's home, however caring, or long-term fostering.
That is why we intend to bring forward measures to cut through the bureaucratic clutter of rules that stop children having a decent home with adoptive parents. Our new proposals aim to cut out the nonsense about "non-smoking, ethnically identical" parents and to concentrate on the needs of a child to be integrated into a loving and stable home as quickly as possible. We aim to cut to 12 months the waiting time before a child is found an adoption placement. Although this is a vast improvement on the present position, it is a maximum not a minimum time-frame; for it must always be remembered that each of us has only one childhood which, once lost, can never be retrieved.
Our new proposal will deliver a 40 per cent increase in permanent placements nationally by 2005. New national standards will ensure that prospective adopters are treated fairly across the country and are not helpless in the face of the passing whims of social workers. The question should always be "Is it in this child's interests to be adopted by this family, and not remain in the care of the state?", rather than, "Is this family ideal in every way?". Very few of us would pass that test.
Our proposals recognise that some children have special difficulties: not all are the endearing babes in arms of romantic fiction. Our proposals for post-adoption services will help support them into a new home. Other children want to maintain a legal link with their parents. For these we propose a new concept of "special guardianship" which would provide the security of a permanent home while still retaining some links with the birth family. This will be of especial value in our ethnic communities, where religious objections to adoption, as we know, are sincerely held and must be respected.
The Government believe that every child has the right to a secure upbringing. Most families can provide that for themselves, but there is a special duty on society to take particular care of children who do not have that advantage. These are our most vulnerable dependants. If they move from pillar to post in short-term care, with 20 per cent having three or more foster placements in a year, then is it any wonder that they become disaffected and alienated? Is it any wonder if they drift into unemployment and crime? Is it any wonder that they in their turn prove unsatisfactory
1162
parents and that the whole cycle is repeated in the next generation? We must work to break this cycle of deprivation now. The Government's new adoption proposals will ensure that the welfare of these children is put first and that they are given the chance of a good upbringing to equip them for the responsibilities of citizenship.
I listened, as ever, with care but with growing wonder to the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Young. If only I could be as sure of anything as she is about everything, how simple life would be! But the picture she paints of her ideal society is one which few would recognise outside the plot of a 1950s Ealing film. Of course it is true that there is more divorce, that there are more teenage pregnancies and more lone parents than when I was growing up. But it needs to be remembered that the rosy picture of the dutiful and subservient housewife and the stern but kindly paterfamilias, living in a semi in leafy suburbia with two well-mannered and obedient children, often masked the brutal reality of a loveless marriage, based on the financial dependence of the neglected wife in a home ruled by fear and where hypocrisy played a prominent role. I strongly believe that the society of today, with all its many faults, is a gentler, more civilised and more tolerant community in which to bring up children than ever itwas when I was a boy.
The key to our progress has been our growing tolerance—tolerance not only of those with whom we have no quarrel, but of those whose lifestyles we find uncongenial. After all, we are all minorities in one way or another. Lawyers are certainly minorities, and perhaps not much loved ones at that!
Let me make one thing plain. A loving marriage between two parties of the opposite sex provides, for the overwhelming majority in our country, the best assurance of a happy personal life and provides the surest foundation upon which to rear a successful family. But I know of no words of Christ which in any way condemn any loving relationship. His harshest judgment was on the self-righteous.
The noble Baroness has told the House what she is against and what she condemns. On the whole, I incline to the view that those of us in positions of privilege in this House should pause long before criticising those of whose lifestyles we disapprove.
The Government will spare no effort in their quest for the best means of supporting families. I have, in a spirit of mediation and good will, looked far and wide at the views of others. I have found valuable help in a document entitled Clear Blue Water—Common Sense in the Conservative Party. It was launched last year by Nigel Evans MP, a Front Bench spokesman and vice-chairman of the Conservative Party. It says this:
"Conservatives should seek equality before the law".
I entirely agree. We all should.
"Conservatives should therefore support: an equal age of consent; the abolition of Clause 28; and the right of Gay marriage".
These words caused me puzzlement, but perhaps the noble Baroness is in a better position than I to enlighten the House. Is this still the Conservative position? I look forward to hearing her reply.

1163
I yield to no one in my defence of the family, but our country is changing and this House, if it is to lead the nation, must respond to those changes. In the time of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, homosexuality was regarded as an absolute bar to becoming a judge. I always thought this blinkered and prejudiced policy indefensible in the modern world and was delighted when my predecessor, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, abrogated it. I have carried this reform forward. Now, a man or woman who wants to become a judge is judged solely on his or her merits irrespective of sexual orientation, ethnic origin, gender or disability provided that he or she is able to fulfil the duties of the office, again on merit. Surely that is the way ahead. Surely it is the best way to get the best judges and the best system of justice.
What we must recognise in this House is that the concept of what is or is not a family is changing. More and more people are living together without marrying; more and more children are being born to lone parents—
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble and learned Lord? Does he accept any government responsibility whatever for the moral condition of the country?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I take the view that government must, so far as they can, create and follow policies which are conducive to conditions of economic well-being. I believe, of course, in the criminal law, but I do not believe that in the matter of these most fundamental human relations it is the function of government to sermonise.
It is the genius of the common law that it recognises these facts of life and adapts to meet them. Your Lordships' House, sitting judicially, recently considered the concept of a family in relation to a same sex partner's rights of occupation under the Rent Acts. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Slynn of Hadley, in holding that such a partner did have such rights, said:
"Far from being cataclysmic it is … in accordance with contemporary notions of social justice".
He continued:
"It seems also to be suggested that such a result in this statute [Rent Act 1977] undermines the traditional (whether religious or social) concept of marriage and the family.
"It does nothing of the sort. It merely recognises that, for the purposes of this Act, two people of the same sex can be regarded as having established membership of a family, one of the most significant of human relationships which both gives benefits and imposes obligations".
One of the achievements of this Government that gives me greatest pride is the Human Rights Act, which, at long last, has incorporated into our own law those principles of decency and mutual respect that animated the British framers of the European convention 50 years ago. It gave Europe, the cradle of civilisation, a new start out of the ashes of the Second World War. At the heart of the convention is Article 8, which secures to all our citizens respect for family life and which prohibits interference by the state with that right except to the extent that it is lawful, proportionate and necessary in a democratic society.
1164
It remains to be seen how the courts will give effect to this living organism. In many instances our own common law marches hand in hand with the convention. But in others it will be the convention that will inspire the judges to fashion the law to the challenges of this millennium. I cannot predict how precisely this infant will grow, but grow it will. I am confident that our judges will give it good succour and that in adulthood it will bring pride to its progenitors.
The role of the state is to encourage, not to compel; to provide practical help, not to preach. I can assure noble Lords that the Government are certainly not neutral. We have made clear our support for the institution of marriage and for the family. This is well in keeping with the principles of my party. Labour has always supported the family. It was the government of Clement Attlee who began the legislative protection of children with the Children Act 1948. In 1975, we brought forward the Children Act of that year and we gave strong support to the Children Act 1989, which will surely prove to be an enduring monument to the work of my predecessor the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern. This proud record is entirely in keeping with our determination to use the resources of our country not for the benefit of the few but for the needs of the many. It is a task to which we have set our hand and from which we shall not flinch until we accomplish it.
I do not know when the general election will come. It may be sooner; it may be later. I could not possibly comment. I can, I think, share this secret with the House. It will certainly come within 18 months. But whether this year or next the support by this Government for families in all its different facets will play a central role in the choice that we place before the British people. I am confident that they will make the right choice.
5.32 p.m.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I should like to begin my concluding remarks by thanking all those who have taken part in the debate, especially my noble friend Lady Blatch, who has always been such a great support to me.
In my opening remarks, I said that I hoped this would be a contribution to the national debate about the future of marriage and I believe that it has been. It has drawn a clear distinction between those of us who actually believe that marriage is the centre of society—indeed, its decline is having terrible consequences—and those who clearly do not hold that view.
There are many points to which I should like to reply, but convention on this occasion does not call for anything other than a few words. However, I should like to draw attention to what the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford said about the late Lord Jakobovits, who exercised such a powerful influence in this House, and his analogy about cutting down the forests: you do not realise the damage you are doing until you have cut down a great deal of the forest. That is precisely what is happening in society. We do not realise what we are doing as, bit by bit, we are dismantling it.

1165
The noble Lord, Lord Janner, who is not now in his place, and the noble Baronesses, Lady McIntosh and Lady Thornton, made the point that we should not impose our ideas on our children; or, indeed, on anyone else. But they impose their ideas all the time. Let us look, for example, at smoking, at drugs, or at racism, if we are going to talk about anything even more serious. They impose their ideas there because they clearly know what they think. It is very sad that they do not impose their ideas in this respect when so many young people are at risk, not only from AIDS but also from sexually transmitted diseases—issues to which I did not refer but which evidence shows to be on the increase.
I turn now to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, whose speeches I always enjoy so much. I only wish that I could think of a suitable reply as regards what the Conservatives were doing in the 17th century, but, alas, such a response does not leap to mind. However, on an issue upon which we have crossed swords before, the noble Earl said that family life is a private matter. Yes, it is. But each piece of law that we pass affects families, and then it becomes a public matter. At that point one has to say what one thinks. As I have said before, I believe that every law sends a signal; and we have sent out a lot of very bad signals recently.
Finally, I should like to thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for his response. He will not expect me to agree with a great deal of his speech. However, I very much support what the Government are doing on the matter of adoption. This is an issue in which I have always been interested. I am very glad that adoption is being made easier, because I believe that to be very important. I greatly welcome that move.
I am sorry that the noble and learned Lord thinks that I am too certain in my views. However, he may be pleased to know that, in preparing for this speech, I have not required either the services of a focus group or of a spin-doctor. Curiously enough, just occasionally, though not very often, I am capable of thinking for myself. Some of us who have principles about life—and I am not ashamed to say this— do feel that if one is in public life one should stand up for what one thinks to be right and true.
I may be wrong in my views, and I do not pretend to have a monopoly on truth. But while listening to many of the speeches opposed to mine, I heard no arguments against the statistics and facts that I presented to the House. It is no argument to say that because everyone is doing something it is necessarily the right way to go forward. I believe that we are treading a very difficult road. The people for whom I worry are not those of my generation; I worry about the future generations.
I conclude by thanking once again all those who have contributed to this debate. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

HM Prison Blantyre House
5.38 p.m.
Lord Mayhew of Twysdenrose to call attention to the record of HM Prison Blantyre House as a resettlement prison, and to the circumstances in which a search of the prison was conducted on 5th and 6th May by officers from other prisons and the prison's governor removed from the prison; and to move for Papers.
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, my great pleasure in succeeding in the ballot was slightly tempered by the recognition that my debate would follow a most distinguished debate. I can only say that I am most grateful to those noble Lords who, for the moment at least, are remaining in the Chamber.
I believe that I should perhaps begin with a declaration of interest. For many years now I have lived in the neighbourhood of Her Majesty's Prison Blantyre House, in the Weald of Kent. It is a prison that has, in my experience, long held the confidence and even the pride of the local community. That is quite significant because it is a prison where a regime has pertained for many years in which a high proportion of prisoners, after being assessed as suitable, have been released into the community as part of the resettlement for work process. This community is not likely to take kindly to perceived navety in the handling of its local prisoners. Therefore, it is quite significant that the community has had confidence in that regime.
But what was the cardinal feature of that regime? I should describe it as a feature of trust: the governor trusted the prisoners; the community trusted the governor; and the prisoners, in large majority, betrayed the trust of neither. That has led to what Sir David Ramsbotham has described in a report on the prison as an amazing success rate among those who have been released from that prison. On the Home Office's own figures, the recidivism rate has been consistently about 35 per cent better than that of other prisons. I believe that the position can be stated even more favourably than that because the Select Committee of the House of Commons which looked into Blantyre House reported that of those who had left that prison in 1996, 8 per cent had reoffended within two years. The figure for all other prisons was in the region of 57 per cent. That is an enormous disparity.
For that reason one can truthfully say that Blantyre House had become the flagship resettlement prison in England. Confidence was not limited to what I might call "us laity". It was shared by authorities no less eminent than the present Director-General of the Prison Service, Mr Martin Narey, and the Chief Inspector of Prisons, the redoubtable Sir David Ramsbotham. I quote a few lines from the published opinions of each.
When Mr Narey visited the prison in May 1998 as director of regimes he wrote in the governor's visitors' book:

1167
"If any establishment is delivering the Government's manifesto commitment on constructive regimes it is Blantyre House. Its offending behaviour programmes, education and general atmosphere—with singularly impressive staff/prisoner relationships—are likely to make a real difference".
I point out that the governor at that time was Mr Eoin McLennan-Murray. He had been in charge since June 1996 and he was still in charge on 5th May 2000 when he was relieved of his post and ejected from the prison premises at two hours' notice, as I shall describe. He was reallocated to Swaleside Prison in the post of deputy governor. But in the mean time Mr Narey had paid another visit in 1999, by now as director-general. On leaving the prison on that occasion he added o the previous praise in the governor's visitors' book,
"Blantyre House performs a valued role as a resettlement prison within the Service. Its general ethos supports its special function, and I am committed to protecting this".
Sir David Ramsbotham and his team had visited Blantyre in 1997 and then again in January 2000. In his resulting report, which nevertheless made some criticisms, Sir David stated:
"Our inspection wholeheartedly endorsed all the comments in the governor's Visitors' Book, and in our previous Inspection reports, and recognised by the Minister".
His preface ended as follows:
"Therefore, I conclude by praising the consistent, innovative and courageous approach of the governor and staff at HMP Blantyre House to their very difficult and challenging task, on behalf of the public. It has established a reputation for excellence as a resettlement prison, a most difficult role".
That was signed within two months of the governor's summary removal which was immediately followed the same afternoon by the installation of a new governor, who was ordered by the area manager forthwith to request a major search of the prison. He did so, perhaps not surprisingly. It was soon commenced by 84 prison officers from other prisons, including 28 specialists in restraint and control techniques, who were already detailed off and briefed for the purpose.
The committee was told that planning had begun eight days before, and well before the incoming governor was told of his appointment. The outgoing governor was kept in the dark about the planned search and about his imminent removal. So was the board of visitors. In the course of the search—there was no resistance of any sort—damage was done to property. The outside officers smashed internal doors and other fittings, including the two doors to the chaplain's office in the chapel, and the doors to the health centre, to the full repair value of £6,100. As to all that was discovered, Mr Narey's own memorandum to the Select Committee, five months later, stated that,
"The search found some cannabis, three ecstasy tablets, and some pornography. It also revealed inadequate arrangements for locking up tools and mobile phones, authorised for outside work, but which should not have been kept within the prison".
In his oral evidence to the committee, Mr Narey described the cannabis found as, "a very small amount". No prisoner had tested positive for drugs, although all had been tested. No criminal proceedings or even disciplinary proceedings have resulted against any prisoner.
1168
If anything is unsurprising in this episode, it is that the ethos of mutual trust that characterised the regime at Blantyre House has been shattered by it. The prisons Minister, Mr Boateng, frankly admitted that to the committee. Trust had been the bedrock of the prison's success, yet it was destroyed just as crudely and immediately as the prison's physical fittings. The difference, of course, is that trust will take far longer to restore.
The very active and supportive board of visitors reacted with anger and dismay, while the Chief Inspector in his evidence to the Select Committee in October described the search as a ghastly mistake, admittedly, as he said, with hindsight. I know that it has given rise to suspicions, which in the light of Mr Narey's contrary evidence I must myself reject, that the object of the search, as evidenced by its manner, was to provide retrospective justification for the removal of the governor.
I suggest that it is not only the right of this House to examine the circumstances in which this extraordinary and disastrous action took place, it is also your Lordships' very proper concern. This is by reason of the implications it may be thought to have for the responsibilities of the other resettlement prisons, Kirklevington Grange and Latchmere House, to say nothing of any new policy in place at Blantyre House itself. May I ask the Minister—I have given him notice of the questions I wish to ask—what, for example, is now envisaged for education at Blantyre House. and especially for its budget, for art, and for photography there?
The Prison Service explanation of what happened, endorsed by Ministers, is that the search derived from developing intelligence of a grave and sensitive nature, and that the protection of the public made it necessary. On this, the committee, in its swingeing report, found as follows:
"We are completely unconvinced that the search was a proportionate response to the intelligence which has been used to justify it. We do not believe that the reasons given to us in public justify the exceptional search or the way it was carried out. Nor do we find the evidence (as to intelligence) given to us in private persuasive".
I suspect that your Lordships will find this worrying.
As to the removal of the governor, I was told in a Written Answer on 23rd May that his career move—I am not making this up—to a different type of prison had been planned for some time. The director-general decided that this move should take place to coincide with the security operation, so that the programme of action required to take the establishment forward could be driven through from the outset by the new governor. Be that as it may, Mr McLennan-Murray was only told of the actual date of his "career move" on 5th May itself. The incoming governor had been told of his own career move just two days earlier.
Your Lordships may consider that that kind of career planning and management is rather remarkable, and I am glad to see that in the Minister's response to the Select Committee, which he published on Monday evening, at least part of it is described, albeit with hindsight, as he said, as "undesirable".

1169
It is here that one may find significance in the tense relationship that had long existed between the area manager, Mr Murtagh, and the governor. Mr Narey had known it to be tense—as he said to the committee—ever since he became director-general in early 1999. The board of visitors had been so worried by it that about a year before the search they had written about it to Mr Narey, and also to the chief inspector. That seems to have been the principal reason why each paid a further visit to the prison, at the conclusion of which each made the supportive comments that he did.
I ask the Minister whether it is not the case that the visitors in their letter had complained of this, and of the governor being bullied? When the chief inspector and his team visited the prison in January 2000, the board of visitors told him that there was little trust between the area manager and the governor. It was, they said, undermining confidence, but it was this confidence that was required to be able to run such a prison.
Sir David Ramsbotham in his evidence to the committee said,
"The governor had a very clear view of his mission, which had been endorsed by successive Directors General … I do not think that was actually shared by the Area Manager. I get the feeling that the Area Manager, for reasons best known to himself, did not actually support what the governor was doing or why. I think that is thoroughly unfortunate".
Not surprisingly, in its report, the committee stated:
"We conclude that the relationship between the Area Manager and the governor had deteriorated to such an extent that the Prison Service should have addressed it much earlier by moving one of them or by altering the chain of command or both".
So it would be helpful to know whether those perceptions from those quarters are accepted. Why did Mr Boateng's response this week to the report not deal with the relationship?
The management of a resettlement prison of course calls for judgment and courage. The security of the public has to be balanced against the objective of breaking the mould of criminal behaviour through a judicious degree of trust and programmes of activity tailored to individual prisoner's needs. It is the risk-taking in that process which calls for judgment. It is the uncertainty of the outcome which demands courage. Management will always be at risk of being damned if they do and damned if they don't; and not least by Ministers of whatever political colour who are themselves under the lash for presiding over some embarrassing event or another. But surely it is essential that where you have the priceless commodity of trust well established, you must draw on it rather than intemperately jettisoning it when your judgement tells you that changes in the regime are needed. Moreover, you must not let tense relationships in the hierarchy of management persist.
What happened at Blantyre House last year derived, I believe, at least in part from conflicting approaches to its resettlement role. The earlier manager seems to have placed primary importance on fulfilling the security requirements that are appropriate to any
1170
ordinary category C prison. Any resettlement programmes had to be subordinated to that. Mr Narey told the committee that in his opinion the staff had inadequate security consciousness.
On the other hand, the governor believed that in giving far greater prominence to a successful resettlement ethos he was delivering what Blantyre House was for. His decision to persevere with this was not unaffected by his having been refused by the area manager any of the extra resources he had said he would need to bring security nearer to normal category C standards. In the way of the world, his successor has, of course, now been given these. I should be glad if the Minister would confirm this contrasting treatment and explain it.
I have some further questions of which I have also given notice. Do the Government accept that there is as yet no formulated policy for resettlement in the Prison Service and that there urgently needs to be one? When will one be formulated and will there be a senior, experienced officer directing it? Is it satisfactory that such a post should be combined with that of a retitled director of regimes? What is the Government's policy towards boards of visitors and what weight will be given in future to warnings from them that relationships are causing them anxiety for the welfare of their prisons? Lastly, what is the Prison Service's own assessment of the damage that this episode has done to confidence in the other two prisons in England delivering resettlement programmes and known as resettlement prisons?
I welcome the decision to recategorise Blantyre House as a semi-open prison. When will that take effect, and will the board of visitors be consulted as to the implications?
This is a sorry story. It must not be allowed to arise again. The Government's answers to these questions can help to determine whether or not it will. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
5.53 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans: My Lords, it is abundantly clear from the report of the Select Committee on Home Affairs on HM Prison Blantyre House that some very serious errors of judgment were made in the way in which the situation was handled. I want to single out one event in particular which has caused considerable disquiet: the way in which the chapel itself was broken into by the raiding party. That was completely out of order for two reasons.
First, a chapel—not least one which had made separate provision for Muslim prisoners—is not just "a. n. other" room. It is a place where the sacred is honoured, a place for prayer, the sacraments and worship. It is a place where people in need can think their deepest and most private thoughts. It is not sacred just because it represents the presence of Almighty God, although of course it does so; it is also sacred because it represents the deepest levels of our humanity. To trample so wantonly and brutally over a sacred place is to trespass upon the holy and upon the human. If chapels in prisons are not honoured, then

1171
nothing and no one else will be. A society which loses a sense of awe in the presence of the sacred—and whether one perceives "sacredness" in religious, aesthetic or human terms is not relevant to my argument—is a society which threatens to become ugly, depraved and deeply fractured.
I believe that it was also out of order that neither the chaplain, nor his colleagues, nor the board of visitors, were present when the raid on the chapel occurred. Not to have involved them was a serious abuse of power. I seek from the Minister an assurance that when considering raids in the future the Prison Service will be absolutely clear about what may or may not happen in relation to chapels in prisons, and will seek advice from the Bishop to Prisons or the Chaplain-General on the drawing up of guidelines to ensure that such an appalling act of desecration never happens again in our country.
5.57 p.m.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, like the right reverend Prelate, I, too, thank my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew for raising this matter. The background and the actions taken in respect of HM Prison Blantyre House are well recorded in the Select Committee's report. I, too, was glad to read the Government's response published in a timely manner for today's debate; namely, as recently as yesterday. One wonders whether it would have appeared so promptly had my noble and learned friend not been planning his debate. Be that as it may, the Government's response is no less welcome for that.
I speak not because I know very much about prisons—sadly, or happily depending upon one's point of view, I do not—but because I am chairman of the Engineering and Marine Training Authority. We have been working in prisons for a number of years promoting engineering training, in particular in resettlement prisons. Our work has not recently included Blantyre House but a number of other prisons. In recent times we have awarded something like 1,000 National Vocational Qualifications (NVQs) in basic, and some not-so-basic, engineering skills to prisoners preparing to leave prison. We attach high importance to that work. We hope and believe that the Prison Service does too. There have been some genuine difficulties. I do not make too much of them. For example, sometimes it has been difficult to track prisoners moving from one prison to another with regard to the pursuit of their studies and qualifications. But we have worked with the prison authorities to overcome those difficulties. I hope that the work can continue.
However, it is very difficult for us to pursue our task—I know that many others seek to do similar things—if, even in the model prisons like Blantyre House, there is the risk of the kind of disruption which occurred last year and to which my noble and learned friend referred. There has been no justification for the huge disruption to the resettlement process at Blantyre House by any ministerial pronouncement, any items discovered on the occasion of the raid or any statement to the Select Committee.
1172
My organisation pledges its determination to provide as much training as can be absorbed by the prison system for those who are preparing to return to the outside world. Perhaps some of them will not be returning for a long time. They could also benefit from some of the training that we provide. I hope that our work will not in future be disrupted as it was at Blantyre House on the occasion in question.
6 p.m.
Baroness Stern: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, for initiating the debate. It is important for the reasons already outlined—the events of 5th and 6th May and the matters of grave concern raised in the report of the House of Commons Home Affairs Committee. It is also important because of the wider questions raised about the role of Blantyre House as a resettlement prison.
I have read the report of the House of Commons committee thoroughly, together with a number of other documents, including the annual reports from the prison's excellent board of visitors. What emerges from those reports is extraordinary. For someone such as me, whose daily work is about imprisonment: and how it is done around the world, the story of Blantyre House is remarkable. We read an analysis of a prison that is almost unique in the world. I hope that noble Lords will bear with me if I attempt to set out the particular elements of the work of Blantyre House that make it such an extraordinary place.
First, it ran a regime based on trust. I am not sure that it is widely understood what an achievement that is. The normal structure of a prison is of two sides—us and them. Members of staff and prisoners have, first, to be loyal to their side. If not, the consequences are serious and may be dangerous. That is a basic, universal law of prison life. At Blantyre House, it was challenged and, in many ways, overcome. The prison chaplain told the Home Affairs Committee that the prisoners,
"come into a culture where through working together there was trust, there was responsibility, there was respect".
Secondly, there was a basic rule at Blantyre House: no violence, either physical or verbal. Noble Lords will know that violence is deeply endemic in the culture of prisons in all countries, even here. To establish a prison where violence is not acceptable is remarkable.
Thirdly, the prison built an outstanding relationship with the community around it. Fourthly, the prison worked to make prisoners think not just of themselves and how to change themselves, but of other people less fortunate than themselves. There were projects in which the prisoners worked for old and disabled people. They did an annual day out for 1,000 handicapped people and their carers. That also happens in other resettlement prisons. Kirklevington Grange in Cleveland supports 20 local charitable projects and requires the prisoners there to do at least 15 days' community work.
Looking at those achievements, an experienced person knowing a lot about prisons might say that it was too good to be true and that the prisoners there

1173
must have been first offenders or perhaps Financial Times readers who had committed financial crimes. Not at all. The prisoners at Blantyre House in 1998–99 had, on average, served two previous prison sentences and had an average of nine previous convictions. Cynical people might then say that the regime must have been based on the personal charisma of one person and would collapse when that person moved on. That is not so either. The ethos has continued even though governors have moved on. The programme is based on a well thought-out set of stages, with the prisoners having to pass each one before moving to the next. It is a rigorous and testing programme.
It may be said, rightly, that prisons are not there to try out nice theories. That is not the test. The objective of the work is to help people to change and to come out of prison with a new view of life, a new view of what is a worthwhile life and a different approach to other people and their property.
Deprivation of liberty is the punishment for a crime, but once people are imprisoned there is an imperative in a civilised society to try to do things in prison that give them every reason to rethink their lives and stop committing crime. We have substantial evidence that the Blantyre House approach worked. The rate of positive drug tests was 0.7 per cent, against a Prison Service rate of 14.2 per cent. The figure for absconding—prisoners running away or not returning when they should—was two in the past two years out of 16,000 temporary releases. Reconviction rates have been mentioned. Noble Lords will be aware that that is a minefield. Claims are made and it is important to ask whether like is being compared with like. But taking all the complexities into account, the 8 per cent reoffending rate is well below the rate of 22 per cent that would be predicted for the sort of prisoners taken by Blantyre House.
Other aspects of the running of this mould-breaking prison should also make us feel that our Prison Service has much to be proud of. The oversight system—the board of visitors—which is such an admirable feature of our arrangements in this country, works very well. The board takes a deep interest in the prison and the prisoners. It is vigilant in protecting the work of the prison. It ensures that race relations work is properly done. It monitors the work placements and at the same time checks that security is adequate and public protection is in the forefront.
We are talking about a prison with much to be proud of, where we could be described as world leaders. It is very difficult to combine good security, concern for the protection of the public, intelligent assessment and responsible analysis of risk with recognition of what rehabilitation really means. It requires a dedication to looking at the prisoner as a person and a citizen with a capacity to help as well as to harm, to give as well as to take, to show loyalty and trust as well as betrayal and hatred and a determination to help prisoners to stop seeing themselves as the victim and to understand who are the
1174
real victims. That is highly skilled work. Sadly, much stands in the way of enabling the really good governors and staff in our prison system to do that.
Mike Newell, the chairman of the Prison Governors Association, wrote an article in the magazine of the Association of Members of Boards of Visitors about the climate in the Prison Service. He described it as a climate of,
"fear, blame and a sense of impending doom".
He asks why the sickness rate for governors nearly doubled in the past year. He asks why more governors than ever before have been removed or have left their posts. And he says that the cause is the performance culture with an obsession for ever-improving results. He says that figures have overtaken people and that we accentuate the negative. He talks about bullying of governors by their bosses, the area managers. Governors feel that they are not trusted by Prison Service headquarters. He talks about the narrow imperatives of the performance measures; for example, governors are judged by how far they reduce the number of people who test positive under the mandatory drug-testing scheme in prison, even if all the prisoners who abstained in prison are released and return to drug-taking straightaway.
All those speaking in the debate today do so, I am sure, out of a deep concern for the Prison Service, its staff and its director-general and with enormous support for the task that it has to do in balancing custody and care, public protection and rehabilitation. However, we all know that nearly all prisoners will leave prison at some point and that many will do so after a relatively short time. The work of prisons makes sense only if it is geared to the outside world, to the life that prisoners will lead when they leave prison and to their capacity to lead a responsible life in the community.
Therefore, I am sure that everyone in this House will welcome some of the changes announced in the Government's reply to the Home Affairs Committee. I am sure that we all welcome the statement that the director-general expects staff to act with complete integrity. Presumably, integrity excludes the type of bullying mentioned by Mr Newell in his article. We must welcome the redesignation of the regimes directorate as the resettlement directorate because it shows a recognition that for most prisoners the prison regime should be oriented towards returning to the community. We must welcome the decision that a key performance indicator about resettlement will be operational from the year 2002.
In conclusion, I ask the Minister, who I know is committed personally very much to resettlement and rehabilitation, whether he can assure us that the Prison Service values the work of the resettlement prisons, understands the complexity of the task of resettling those who have committed serious offences and intends to support, encourage and build on the work of those who try to carry it out. I should also like to know whether the Prison Service has responded to the concerns of the prison governors expressed by Mr Newell and what action is in hand to rebuild good

1175
working relationships. I should like to receive reassurance that the Government support fully the independence of the boards of visitors.
Finally, in view of the Prison Service statement which says that it will look after prisoners with humanity and the director-general's statement at the February 2000 Prison Service conference that prisoners should be treated with dignity, I ask the Minister whether he intends to produce guidelines setting out the minimum standards of humanity and dignity to be observed when prisoners and prisons are being searched.
6.14 p.m.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I begin by endorsing with enthusiasm everything that the noble Baroness has just said. I start from the premise that the purpose of the Prison Service is to reduce the level of crime in this country. I make the following observations: first, it is supposed to do so by deterrence and by the rehabilitation of the prison population; secondly, the figures show that it is manifestly failing; and, thirdly, rehabilitation has always seemed to take a very low place in the planning of the Prison Service.
When I was the Minister with responsibility for the Prison Service, I remember how it was necessary to keep repeating the mantra that prisoners went to prison as punishment, not for punishment. They were not there to be beaten up; they were there to be improved. I am not saying that beating up was a common occurrence, but in my day the ethos of the Prison Service was not that of an organisation bent on returning people into society in an improved condition from that in which they had been taken from it.
The increasingly important imperative of reducing crime in this country means that the rehabilitative function is of enormous importance. When one looks at the Select Committee's figures, one sees that by any yardstick Blantyre House was exemplary. Paragraph 109 on page 32 shows that the time spent in purposeful activity per prisoner was very nearly double the Prison Service target, half as much again as the Blantyre House target and double the Prison Service actual. The successful temporary release rate was above the Prison Service actual figure and above its own targets.
The noble Baroness has already pointed out that the percentage of positive tests for drug use was one-twentieth of that in the Prison Service as a whole. That makes one wonder what in the intelligence led the authorities to believe that a crash search of the extraordinary nature recorded was necessary. That search took place in a prison in which staff absence due to sickness, which in any industry is a good indication of morale, was well below the Prison Service target and 25 per cent below the Prison Service actual average. That provides a picture of a thriving organisation, but the next thing that we hear is that the governor has been removed at two hours' notice.
I must pick up that point from my noble friend. It is ludicrous and an insult to expect people to accept that a career move can be made with two hours' notice. However, that is what we are told happened. As the
1176
right reverend Prelate pointed out, the damage was done in a manner of far more significance to the culture of that prison than is generally recognised, even among those speaking in this debate. The inmates witnessed the spectacle of the people whom they had grown to know, respect and trust as the prison staff being removed. They saw a set of unknown people come in to replace them, smashing down the doors when they could not find the keys and going away just before dawn with the not particularly significant fruits of their search.
Therefore, what was the context in which the prison conducted its work? I am disturbed to read in a report written by the Chief Inspector of Prisons in March 2000 following an inspection:
"We spoke to a group of 12 ex-prisoners who had been released from between nine weeks and two years and returned to the prison for the afternoon to speak to us. This was the first time that this inspection team had had the opportunity to discuss a prison with its ex-residents. They told us the following. Prisoners at Blantyre House were treated with respect as individuals".
That is good.
"They owed a particular debt to the governor, who had put his job on the line for them".
That is impressive.
"Not all the staff supported the governor. The area manager tried to obstruct the governor".
That is reflected in paragraph 79 of the Select Committee's report, which states:
"We conclude that the relationship between the Area Manager and the Governor had deteriorated to such an extent that the Prison Service should have addressed it much earlier by moving one of them or by altering the chain of command or both".
That is the central paragraph in the report. It is extraordinary that that matter was not addressed in the Government's reply, which we have all been able to obtain, although we did so very late indeed. It would have been useful if we could have had it more than 24 hours before this debate.
The invasion was triggered by intelligence. Well, that is a word that we use in the forces and in security when we wish to say that we have very important information that must not be compromised, that nobody else should have and that should be acted on. I respect the fact that sources must be protected, and I understand that we cannot be told the exact detail of the intelligence, or who provided it. However, what was the route—I think that the Minister can tell us this—by which it came from those who gathered it to the Prison Service directorate? Was it through the area manager's office, one would like to know? It was the catalyst for what happened, and what happened is seen by everyone as a disaster.
An important recommendation of the Select Committee is that there should be a proper programme for resettlement and proper recognition of that in the management structure of the Prison Service. The document containing the Government's response currently eludes me, although I know I have it somewhere. The Government said that they recognise that the situation should be changed and that they will do what they have been asked to do, namely., to put one person in charge of resettlement. However, it

1177
transpires that they will simply give the directorate for regimes a different title, by calling it the directorate for resettlement. That is the thinnest coat of whitewash that I have ever seen. If nothing better than that can be done, it would be better to do nothing and at least be honest about the situation. I feel strongly about this issue. Having spent three years in the seat of the present Minister with responsibility for prisons, I sympathise with him. I understand that things go on out there, and that one hears about them only too late to do anything effective other than to try to prevent their repetition. The right honourable gentleman in question should ensure that no such event happens again. If he addressed some of the concerns that were expressed by your Lordships, some of whom have very intimate experience of the institutions that we are talking about, that would be greatly to the public good.
Having sorted out why the situation arose, why there was a breach between the area manager and the governor, why nothing was done about the situation, and what precipitated this unfortunate episode, the most important thing, above all, is to ensure that we restore rehabilitation or resettlement as the prime objective of the Prison Service and that that is not done at the last minute and in relation to the few people whom one thinks are possibly remedial. The appointment to a resettlement prison should be regarded as a plum job in the service, and the best people should fill it. They should be backed up to the hilt by the rest of the Prison Service. Until that is done, we shall still be in a mess.
6.24 p.m.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew of Twysden, for bringing to the notice of your Lordships today the extraordinary treatment of Blantyre House by the Prison Service.
The report on Blantyre House by the Select Committee on Home Affairs in another place shows how important it is to have a democratic, independent body uncovering matters that so easily could be covered up and left to stagnate. The introduction of that report states that Blantyre House prison had a "reputation for excellence" in the resettlement of offenders. It has been described by successive heads of the Prison Service, chief inspectors of prisons and the Minister with responsibility for prisons in those terms.
On 5th May 2000, however, the governor, who had been praised for "doing an outstanding job", was removed abruptly from his post and an overnight search ensued, carried out by prison officers from other prisons.
At the end of this debate, I hope that the Minister will tell us how recommendation 21 of the report will be achieved. That recommendation states:
"Blantyre House will need a clear policy framework, significant resources and the commitment of senior management to rebuild the spirit of trust necessary to return to its role as an effective resettlement prison".
1178
I hope that the noble Lord will be able to add to the Government's reply which has been placed in the Library of your Lordships' House and that he will assure your Lordships that the matter will not happen again. It was a most unfortunate circumstance.
The Minister will, I hope, agree with me that when such a serious error of judgment is made about one prison, there will be ripples of insecurity throughout prisons across the country and among senior staff. That cannot be good for morale or for the people who undertake difficult jobs and need support from the Prison Service.
Why did not the board of visitors stay for the duration of the search? Were its members sent home before the sacrilege took place in the chapel?
While I was visiting a category B prison in Kent, to sit in on a drug rehabilitation session and to see how the prison was trying to cope with a drugs situation, I met one of the prisoners, who was a drugs counsellor in the prison. As sometimes happens, he kept in touch with me and, from time to time, gave me reports on how he was progressing. He graduated to Blantyre House and wrote to me from there. He stated:
"Things have really worked out well for me during my 6 years of imprisonment. I have managed to overcome my own addiction problems and re-train to a level where I am able to help others with similar problems, and to my shock people now not only listen to and ask for my opinion, but are willing to pay me for it. It makes a big difference to how I feel inside being able to support my wife and children again".
While in prison, that prisoner gained a diploma of higher education in addiction studies from the University of Leeds.
That is rehabilitation. It involves making people who came to prisons with a chaotic life-style that had turned them to a life of crime realise that they can mend their ways and work hard, and that there is a useful life waiting for them when they are released. The Prison Service should be proud of such success stories.
On 28th January 2000, I had another letter from the same man. He had been released from Blantyre House and was living and working in the community. I shall quote from the letter:
"I am afraid I am writing to you as I may need to ask for your assistance for a worthy cause. As you know I spent the last 3 years of my sentence at Blantyre House Prison. It is a small prison that holds about 120 prisoners, including 25 life-serving prisoners approaching their release dates. Blantyre House is unique within the prison system in that its main focus is on rehabilitation and reintegration back into society as opposed to retribution.
Unfortunately, Blantyre is under threat of closure or at the very least the dismantling of its regime to something more austere and I fear that the Governor whom I respect and admire is fighting a losing battle to keep Blantyre as it is. The governor at Blantyre does need, and in my opinion deserves the support of those with influence".
That did not happen. I received that letter in January. The raid took place in May, wasting public money and leaving staff, prisoners and supporters of the prison in a state of shock and disbelief. The Government said that the planning started in April. That does not add up.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I too add my grateful thanks to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew of Twysden, for instigating this debate. The debate earlier this afternoon concerned marriage and traditional family values. This debate also is about values—the values that a civilised society attaches to its dealings with those who offend and find themselves in our prison institutions.
I should say also that I am delighted that we have so many contributions from noble Lords identifying precisely why they consider things to have gone wrong. I have been a member of a board of visitors for some years and have been involved not only at local level, but also in terms of advising the Prison Service from time to time on a number of issues confronted by it. I can say, like many others here, that I take credit from time to time for the fact that I receive Christmas cards from some former offenders who now lead useful lives.
What happened at Blantyre House prison must concern all those interested not only in the welfare of prisoners, but also, and more importantly, in the progressive policies which help resettle inmates to a law-abiding life. So overcrowded are our prisons that confinement rather than rehabilitation seems to be the primary aim. I know of just a handful of establishments where we can put our hand on our heart and say that they are good prisons. Blantyre House is one of them. Therefore what happened there on 5th May 2000 must shame us all.
In one single evening we demonstrated all that is unacceptable in the running of our prison establishments. Perhaps the Minister could indicate when we last had to send 84 prison officers from other prisons to search an establishment like Blantyre House. I can recollect no such incident in the 25 or 30 years I have been connected with the penal service in this country.
Let me say first that on many occasions I have praised Martin Narey, the Director-General of Prisons, for the way he has tackled difficult issues since taking up his appointment. I am still of the opinion that he is in the mould of progressive director-generals who have run our prisons in the past. We also have some of the best chief inspectors of prisons. Judge Stephen Tumim was no pushover and neither is Sir David Ramsbotham. That is why, the Minister will recollect, we opposed so strongly any idea of diluting the functions of the Prison Inspectorate by merging it with another department. I am glad that that is out of the way and the Minister saw the logic of our argument.
The incident of 5th May will go down as one of the worst examples of ill-informed, misjudged and damaging actions which are a blot on the good name of the Prison Service. I need not repeat in detail what has already been said by many noble Lords in today's debate. The Commons Home Affairs Select Committee set out in detail what happened on that night. I have not been able to read the Government's response to that report as I only received a copy a few moments ago.
1180
The main question—there are rnany—is: who is ultimately responsible for what happened in Blantyre House? Where does the buck stop? I would hate to go back to the situation of conflict which arose between the then Home Secretary Michael Howard and the then Director-General of Prisons, Derek Lewis. Passing the buck does not help. It would be helpful to know who knew what about the operation at Blantyre House and why the matter was handled in the way it was.
The work of Blantyre House prison in steering longterm prisoners away from a life of crime has been a beacon of enlightenment in the prison system for over a decade. I am delighted that the noble Baroness, Lady Stern, was able to give examples of the successes of the work undertaken in that institution. Prisoners released from Blantyre have a reconviction rate of 8 per cent, compared with the average of 57 per cent for the prison system as a whole. As the Home Affairs Committee pointed out in paragraph 111 of its report,
"It is possible to argue that part of Blantyre House's success with re-offending is based on the fact that those most likely to respond positively to its regime applied for and were selected to go there. This may account for it having a better than average record on re-offending, but it hardly accounts for that rate being one-seventh of the average".
So there was something unique about Blantyre House.
In 1999–2000 Blantyre House prisoners were involved in an average of 43.6 hours of purposeful activity a week as against a Prison Service average of 23.2. Again, that is a positive way in which to deal with those in our prison institutions. As the noble Baroness, Lady Stern, pointed out, only 0.7 per cent of drug tests on Blantyre House prisoners were positive compared with an average of 14.2 per cent for the Prison Service as a whole. And, most importantly, there were no assaults and no escapes from Blantyre House during that year.
On seeing that record, one must ask what was the purpose of that raid. I sat for some years as a magistrate and when the police wanted a warrant to search somebody's premises they had to answer countless questions. Only if one was satisfied with the answers would one agree to put a signature to it. Did those in the Prison Service who took part in that raid take any interest whatever in looking at the positive record of the prison before agreeing to the activity carried out on that night?
That outstanding record has been put at risk by the aftermath of an extraordinarily heavy-handed raid of a kind which could only have been justified by powerful evidence of extremely serious, organised criminal activity. I ask the same question as the noble Lord, Lord Elton. What was the seriousness of the matter? What was the source of the intelligence which effectively resulted in the course of action taken on that night? For example, was there any evidence of a serious drug-trafficking operation involving staff as well as prisoners? In fact no evidence of such activity was found. The amount of illicit goods found in the prison was minimal, far less than would have been found in a random raid on almost any other prison in this country.

1181
The result of the raid caused serious damage to the morale of the staff and prisoners at Blantyre House. Many grave points of concern arise from that disastrous episode and I shall concentrate on just three. The first concerns the misinformation given in an attempt to defend the raid after the event. I think that was shameful on the part of whoever made those statements. I refer, for example, to the Director-General's statement to the Home Affairs Committee that a quite frightening amount of contraband material was found, when the Prison Service's own internal inquiry concluded that there were no significant finds.
The damage caused by this episode could have been mitigated if the Minister for Prisons or the Director-General had made a statement such as, "I received information suggesting that serious organised criminal activity had occurred at Blantyre House and I authorised the raid in good faith on the basis of that information"—nobody would dispute that that is the right thing to do—"However, the raid found no evidence of such activity. It is therefore clear, with hindsight, that the information was faulty. We will now have to work hard to ensure that the work and ethos of Blantyre House receives the strong support it needs to continue its outstanding work of resettlement".
Even at this stage it would not be too late to say that. I hope that the Minister will be good enough to take that into account. Why did not the Minister for Prisons or the Director-General make such a statement instead of continuing to defend the raid?
We are entitled to ask, are we not, what was the source of their information? I have looked quickly at the response made by the Home Office and find no evidence whatever so far. Why did it not match the outcome of the search? Would it not have been better to admit to and apologise for the grave error of judgment on the basis of which the decision was taken? How much advance warning did the Minister receive and why did he continue to defend something which was not borne out by the search? That issue needs an answer.
Secondly, one of the changes made following the raid was to prohibit prisoners from having driving lessons in order to get driving licences for cars, heavy goods vehicles and fork lift trucks. Possession of driving licences makes a big difference to the chances of ex-prisoners getting a wide range of jobs. That was an extremely shortsighted move. Have the lessons been reinstated? If not, will the Minister ensure that they are recommenced as soon as possible?
Thirdly, a key factor in this episode appears to have been a difference of view between the area manager, Tom Murtagh, and the former governor of Blantyre House about approaches to resettlement. At paragraph 77 of the report, the Chief Inspector of Prisons, Sir David Ramsbotham, told the Home Affairs Committee:
"I get the feeling that the Area Manager, for reasons best known to himself, did not actually support what the governor was doing or why. I think that that is thoroughly unfortunate".
1182
Does the Minister agree that the resettlement of prisoners is so important that we must aim to ensure that all senior staff in our prison system are fully committed to it? One does not have the impression that the area manager was committed in the same way as the prison governor. Senior staff must be willing to give their full backing to governors who are involved in imaginative steps to resettle prisoners and divert them away from further crime. Does the Minister agree that a strong commitment should be a key criterion in recruiting staff and assessing them for promotion to area manager and other senior posts?
The point at issue is the hostility between the area manager and the prison governor. The questions we are entitled to ask are: why was the area manager at loggerheads with the policies pursued by the governor? Why was there such a difference of opinion on the matters of resettlement? There were complimentary reports, including independent reports, which praised the management of Blantyre House. Surely we are entitled to know how such policy differences are reconciled between the governor and the area manager.
Sometimes it pays to be bold; bold enough to say to inmates that we were wrong in our assumptions; we were wrong in the way that we carried out the operation at Blantyre House. An apology is due to all those who care about our civilised values.
The action of 5th May at Blantyre House was a blot on the good name of our Prison Service. It has a difficult task, which we all appreciate. We shall continue to praise the many good things it does. Equally, it must be accountable for its failures. We need to know much more about the lessons learnt and who was accountable for what. Nothing less will do. I trust that the Minister will be candid in giving that information.
I was delighted by the contribution of the right reverend Prelate, who mentioned the role of the board of visitors. Perhaps I may say that we need to look again at the role it plays. We want to ensure that it is effective and plays a full part in the operation of prisons. I would have had much confidence in the system, had I not been told a few minutes ago by my noble friend Lord Avebury that at Haslar the board of visitors undertook a race relations survey with the full agreement of the Minister but the governor did not like the way it proceeded to carry out its work and three of the board of visitors were dismissed. That is least likely to build confidence of people who give so much of their time caring about those who are in an institution. It is therefore right that we re-examine the role they play.
I conclude by saying that prison is not simply about locking up people. It is also about what happens to them when they are there. I do not refer only to prisons. As a member of a board of visitors I learnt that what happens in prisons affects families. It affects parents and their children. Yet here we are, carrying out the type of action which has effectively done irreparable damage. It is about time we put that right.
6.46 p.m.
Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, I join with other noble Lords in thanking my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew for such an excellent overview of this disastrous situation. Between his speech and the report of the Select Committee the case has surely been made for a damning criticism of the raid on Blantyre House Prison. As noble Lords have mentioned, the reply from the Minister for Prisons was received only yesterday. Therefore, we have had little time to digest its contents. To me it gives two contrasting impressions. I find it somewhat defensive in its reaction to several of the committee's critical findings. However, in addressing the plans for the future of resettlement institutions it is distinctly more positive. The undertaking to report progress to the Select Committee in one year's time is to be welcomed.
My noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew set out the facts on the bungling of the raid. I note in the Minister's reply that no mention was made of the near desecration of breaking into the prison chapel, to which the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans has drawn attention; or as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, the discourtesy extended to the board of visitors which was, it would appear, misled into thinking that this was only a routine visit and encouraged to leave the site. Thus an important element of independent witness was absent during the course of the raid. Perhaps I may say that not for the first time I am privileged to follow the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, who brings such experience to this work, in this case as a member of a board of visitors.
Perhaps I may also draw the attention of your Lordships to the fact that, while the excuse for the use of excessive force was that contrary to prison regulations, keys were in the hands of staff outside the prison, no disciplinary action appears to have been taken in respect of what would be a flagrant breach of regulations, either by the Prison Service or Kent police.
However, I recognise that the Minister broadly accepted the criticisms of the mode of the break-in. On the question of intelligence, the Minister upholds the view of the internal inquiry that in the weeks leading up to 25th April there were serious causes for concern. We must accept that view, though, in fairness to the Prison Service, in an otherwise balanced and fair report the Select Committee should have given greater prominence to the evidence given by Mr Narey on 16th May to another session of the Home Affairs Committee in which he stated:
"I think the worth of our doing that is proven by the quite frightening amount of contraband material we found, which included 25 bank or credit cards, not held legally, cameras, passports, driving licences in forged names, visiting orders for other prisons and escape equipment, which would have meant that an individual there fairly easily could have effected his escape".
Lord Elton: My Lords, I wonder whether my noble friend is referring to the bag of builder's tools which
1184
was part of the legitimate equipment of one of the prisoners but happened to be in the wrong place when the search was made.
Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that intervention. I cannot comment on what was said. However, we note that, in accordance with the recommendations of the committee, a review of intelligence gathering has been put in hand.
As regards the status of Blantyre House. the committee is critical. One of the failures of communication between the prison governor and the area manager, to which many noble Lords have referred and which clearly played a significant part in the whole disastrous incident, was their clearly different perceptions. The governor considered it to be a resettlement institution and the area manager viewed it as a category C prison.
It is worth mentioning a comment on the relations within the service. At paragraph 83 of the report the education manager told the committee that Mr Murtagh told her that prisoners,
"were not to he trusted because they were all beyond redemption".
Mr Murtagh, in his subsequent evidence, refuted that. He said:
"I certainly have not said anything of the sort. I categorically deny it".
But what of the future of Blantyre House? My noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew has left us in no doubt of the reputation which Blantyre House had locally, at least up until the events of May. With due respect to his former constituents, they would not be reticent in voicing their objections had Blantyre House and its liberal and imaginative regime posed any threat to the neighbourhood. I understand that objections have been few, if non-existent.
The work placement is well established and successful and in several instances former prisoners now hold permanent jobs locally. My noble friend Lord Trefgarne drew attention to the opportunities made available by various crafts. The Prison Service, in its internal report, refers to the measures now being taken to improve the security of the regime. I am sure that that is all very fine but in evidence to the committee the Minister for Prisons said, "Trust has been shattered", and a former prisoner said that,
"you can buy drugs in here for the first time ever".
A representative from the Prison Governors Association said that,
"the way senior people are treated in the Service at the moment is such that it may not be the wisest career choice".
The Prison Service memorandum states,
"Although much has been said about a loss of Blantyre House's ethos, performance figures strongly suggest that what is best about Blantyre has been maintained and in some key areas enhanced".
I suggest that, in the light of a memorandum from the board of visitors that verges on the complacent. The memorandum refers to continued unrest at not knowing the reasons for the search—
"perceived misinformation repeatedly given out by the authorities"—

1185
and to a lack of confidence in the regime leading to less co-operation in education in prison activities. That is the measure of the damage which has been done to this imaginative institution and, if I may say so, to the service as a whole.
Perhaps I may make one further point. Recommendation 17 of the committee's report states:
"We recommend that when something goes seriously wrong in the Prison Service, the investigation should be conducted independently by the Chief Inspector of Prisons".
It was the opinion of the committee that the two internal reports from the Prison Service appear to lack independence from the chain of command. I understand that similar complaints led to the establishment of the Police Complaints Authority. The Minister has the power to request such an independent inquiry from the Chief Inspector but Mr Boateng in evidence stated that it did not occur to him to do so on this occasion. I believe that the Government's reply to the committee's report on that matter was less than positive and I should like the Minister's assurance that, in the absence of compelling reasons to the contrary, such a procedure in cases of such obvious sensitivity concerning the operation of the service should be the norm.
Blantyre House has been a model institution, well respected in the community and with a below average absconding rate. As many witnesses testified to the committee and as said by many speakers today, it was built on the basis of trust. The noble Baroness, Lady Stern, put that particularly well. As to whether there were serious abuses by inmates and staff, and whether there was a serious security risk in the making, there are clearly two views. But the point made so eloquently by my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew is that that trust should form the basis of improvements—no institution is perfect—rather than be the victim of some hasty reforms put in hand as the result of what can be described only as a philistine and destructive episode.
For good measure, the committee sought fit to include in its report a check list of how a search of this nature should be conducted. It is devastating in its simplicity and common sense. It reads:
"It could have been planned properly in advance … conducted shortly after dawn (or with adequate lighting provided) … with the direct involvement of the Governor and staff … with the keys obtained and forced entry unnecessary … only in the presence of outside visitors (Board of Visitors) … and under the overall command of Prison Service Headquarters".
The whole service, from the Minister downwards, would do well to bear that advice in mind should the occasion arise again.
The resettlement regime has attracted some of the most imaginative thinking into the Prison Service. It is a scarce commodity; there are only three institutions of its type. The setback to one of these should not be minimised and the Minister should be in no doubt as to the scale of the task facing him in restoring its effectiveness.
6.57 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I, too, want to place on record my gratitude to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew of Twysden, for providing the Government with the opportunity to call attention to the excellent record of Blantyre House and to commend it as a resettlement prison.
I agree with the noble and learned Lord's opening observation that trust is at the heart of the debate. Whatever one's view of what took place at Blantyre House last May, we must all pull in the same direction and ensure that trust is put at the heart of what in future happens there and at other resettlement prisons. That is most important.
I have enjoyed listening to today's contributions to the debate. They have been excellent in quality and perception and all contributors have carefully constructed their comments and observations. Their criticisms have been precise and points made with honesty and integrity. In circumstances such as these it is invidious to draw attention to any one contribution but, as always, I listened with care and interest to the noble Baroness, Lady Stern. She has a long interest and concern in this area of policy. I shall certainly take away her comment that we ought to have an expression of pride in the achievements of Blantyre House. None of us can be in doubt about the importance of that.
I shall try to answer as many questions as possible. However, if some stones are left unturned I shall try to respond perhaps in writing or in further discussions and meetings. The issue is important and I take it most seriously. The Home Affairs Select Committee held a recent and important inquiry into the search of the prison on 5th and 6th May. It was most critical of the way in which the search was conducted. The Home Office committee responded formally to its recommendations and I am grateful to the chairman of that committee for agreeing to make that response available in the Libraries of both Houses from yesterday. I am gratified by the welcome from all sides of the Chamber for the rapidity of its publication and some of its comments, although I understand that not all Members of your Lordships' House have had an opportunity to study the response in detail.
One key point is that, contrary to reports and some of the committee's suggestions and views expressed today, the search of Blantyre House was not indicative of the Government's lack of belief in the importance of resettlement; far from it. Not only do we pay great tribute to the work undertaken at Blantyre House but we fully recognise its importance and value within the overall prison estate.
We fully accept that unintentionally the search and the simultaneous move of the then governor of the prison led the Home Affairs Committee and others to doubt the commitment of the Government and senior managers in the Prison Service to resettlement and the regime at Blantyre House. We do not, however, believe that that doubt is in any way deserved. The Government greatly regret the damage caused during the search of the prison and accept the need for further

1187
work on the security classification of resettlement prisons and an overarching policy framework on resettlement. We are quite clear about the importance of ensuring that Blantyre House and the other two resettlement prisons continue to perform well in that role.
The Government regret that the Home Affairs Committee did not accept the explanation of the reasons for the search of the prison and remain fully supportive of the Director-General in carrying out his responsibilities. I echo the words of the Home Secretary that this is one of the most difficult jobs in public life. Like all Home Office Ministers, and many contributors to this evening's debate, I believe that Martin Narey carries out his job with great distinction.
Many questions have been asked about the decision to search the prison. Blantyre House provides a specialist resettlement role in preparing long-term adult male prisoners for their return to the community. It also caters for about 20 life sentence prisoners as part of their progression towards eventual release. Successful management of the prison depends on the careful balancing of security and resettlement needs. Prisoners who have daily access to the outside world mix with serious offenders who have not yet demonstrated that they can be trusted in open conditions.
While Blantyre House generally fulfils its resettlement role very effectively, the critical balance can be lost if security measures are not given sufficient weight. In the weeks leading up to 28th April 2000 emerging intelligence about Blantyre House built up into a worrying picture of possible security breaches, concerns that prisoners might be involved in criminal activities and the emergence of inappropriate work placements.
Lord Elton: My Lords, perhaps the Minister intends to deal with the following matter at the end of his speech. Is the noble Lord able to tell the House the route by which that intelligence reached the directorate and where in the chain it was evaluated?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, it was my intention to deal with that point later. However, as the noble Lord raises it now I am content to clarify the position and place it on record. Intelligence was collected and analysed by a small group known as the Chaucer team based at HM Prison Swaleside. That team reports to the area manager for Kent. Clearly, that was the route whereby the intelligence emerged. I hope that that fully answers the noble Lord's point.
On 28th April the Director-General decided to conduct a full lock-down search of the prison and simultaneously to move the then governor. The Director-General and the Government stand by that decision, although we greatly regret the damage caused. The Director-General has said that, with the benefit of hindsight, the immediate posting of a new governor to start on the same day of such a search was, in his words I think, undesirable.
1188
I do not believe that at this stage we can unearth new facts and judgments about the night of 5th/6th May. Damage estimated at £2,242 was caused by the forced entry through doors in the prison. The governor leading the search, who expressly took with him a colleague who knew the key system at Blantyre House, is adamant that he would never have authorised forced entry into any part of the prison had keys been available. Other evidence was put to the Home Affairs Committee which claimed that the keys had always been available and the damage was deliberate. Whatever the explanation, we can all agree that the damage was regrettable.
An internal Prison Service inquiry found failings in the planning of the search and made a number of recommendations, including the need for contingency plans, the importance of the attendance of the board of visitors at any non-routine event and practical planning issues related to the search. A full review of the security manual is being undertaken during 2001 and the section which gives guidance on searches is being given high priority. It remains the case that non-routine searches of the kind carried out at. Blantyre House are expected to be relatively rare occasions. The service has, nevertheless, accepted that the lessons emerging from the Blantyre House search need to be absorbed into routine guidance.
Allegations have been made of attempts to mislead Parliament and the public over the significance of the results of the search. I contend that those allegations do not hold water. The search team seized a total of 98 "unauthorised" items. It took time both to assess each item and to conduct an inquiry into the management of Blantyre House which provided the basis for improvements to the way in which security should be managed at that establishment. The objectives of the search were broad and included taking a snapshot of security and control measures at the prison.
The committee's criticism is based on public comments in the first four weeks after the search when it was not yet possible to assess the full significance of every item seized in the search. The results of the search do not stand alone as justification for the search. The Director-General accepts that a large number of items seized turned out subsequently to be relatively insignificant. But there were some significant finds, including three abandoned mobile telephones and some small quantities of drugs. The later investigation into the management of Blantyre H ouse revealed weaknesses in the supervision of prisoners working outside the prison, serious shortcomings in the application of security measures, weaknesses in the allocation and selection procedures for the transfer of prisoners to Blantyre House and apparent financial mismanagement of charitable and subsidiary funds.
Lord Elton: My Lords, the Minister makes a fairly damaging statement. As I understand it, money was found in the chaplain's office which, though unusually large for a prison, was not a significant sum. I would

1189
not have thought that that amounted to the mismanagement of public funds. Does the noble Lord refer to something else?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I repeat that there appeared to be some mismanagement of charitable and subsidiary funds. I am content to take away the noble Lord's point and give it further consideration.
There were also inadequate arrangements for the securing and locking up of tools and mobile telephones authorised for outside work which should not have been kept in the prison. In other circumstances there might have been considerable concern were it not for the particular nature of the prison.
The Director-General made it clear to the Home Affairs Select Committee that he held Mr McLennan-Murray in high regard. Mr McLennan-Murray is on a two-year secondment to the Department for Education and Employment. The timing of his return rests with him and the Prison Service. The director-general expects Mr McLennan-Murray to govern larger prisons than Blantyre House in the future.
The Government accept the committee's recommendation that the three resettlement prisons should have a new security status. The service has recently introduced a "semi-open" security classification for the women's estate which will accommodate prisoners who present a low risk but cannot be fully trusted in open conditions. The service has reassessed the security needs of the three resettlement prisons and decided to reclassify Blantyre House, Kirklevington Grange and Latchmere House as semi-open. That will allow medium- and long-term prisoners to come into a semi-secure environment and, subject to subsequent risk assessments, to be allocated work placements within the community.
The prison has conducted an analysis of the most recent temporary release failures. Each of the prisoners were at an advanced stage in their progression through Blantyre House and were allowed regular access to the community. There is no evidence to link their absconds to the changes at Blantyre House.
The Government are in full accord with the committee's view of the importance of resettlement. We also agree with the committee's view that resettlement should be part of the plan from the start for all prisoners. However, the Government do not accept the committee's view that there is:
"no policy or guidance on resettlement".
They have accepted that there is lack of a national policy framework. Work is in hand to correct that. That framework should be in place by April 2001. I hope that answers a question that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, asked.
There are a wide range of resettlement-related programmes and projects to identify and promote effective practice, particularly with regard to getting prisoners employment and accommodation on release. The examples include the resettlement
1190
pathfinders under the Government's crime reduction programme at seven establishments, which explore effective resettlement work with short-term prisoners in partnership with the Probation Service and voluntary sector organisations; and the welfare to work pilots at 12 establishments which aim to increase the job skills and employability of younger adult prisoners and help ensure that they get maximum benefit from the New Deal for Young People on release. Over 6,300 young offenders have started the welfare to work programme and some 4,700 have successfully completed it.
There are housing advice and mentoring pilots at six establishments in partnership with the Rough Sleepers Unit. There is the Headstart programme which has been successfully run at Thorn Cross and is being extended to two more prisons. That programme helps prisoners to achieve job aspirations through individually tailored interventions, including building close links with the individual's home community prior to release.
There are many other employment and accommodation schemes based on locally developed partnerships between prisons and other agencies, particularly with the voluntary sector. The experience of those initiatives and programmes is being fed into the development and implementation of a new custody to work strategy for the Prison Service to deliver improved employment and accommodation outcomes for released prisoners.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. I sense that he is moving away from the report of the Select Committee. I gave him notice of the questions that I mentioned. Will he find time in the remaining few minutes that he has to deal with, above all, the question of the relationship between the area manager and the governor of the prison? Will he answer the question why Mr Boateng's response made no reference to that? Will he answer the question about funds for greater security, refused to Mr McLennan-Murray but granted, I understand, to the incoming governor? Other questions were asked and we would be disappointed if he missed the opportunity to answer the questions of which he has had notice.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord for bringing us back to those points. I intended to cover them in my conclusion. I recognise that time is pressing so, particularly in view of the noble and learned Lord's observation, I shall answer the points that he asked. There were some 11 of them.
The noble and learned Lord asked whether, when the board of visitors wrote to the director-general, it complained about the relationship between the area manager and the governor. The director-general says that to his knowledge the first time the specific question of bullying was raised by the board of visitors was before the Home Affairs Committee on 17th October. It raised other concerns to the director-general to which he responded by letter and in person.

1191
The committee criticised those relationships and said that the matter should have been addressed earlier. The question relates to that and asks whether we accept that. We do not. The director-general believes in the professionalism of both the former governor and the area manager and their commitment to resettlement. The director-general explained to the Home Affairs Committee that had Blantyre House been re-roled to a juvenile prison, which was considered in early 2000, he would have wanted Mr McLennan-Murray to stay on as governor.
The noble and learned Lord asked about Mr Paul Boateng's response and why he did not deal with the relationship. I am in some difficulty here because a complaint has been lodged with the Permanent Secretary of the Home Office by Mr McLennan-Murray over the relationship. Because of an investigation being undertaken into that complaint, I am sure the noble and learned Lord appreciates that it would be invidious and wrong for me to comment. Therefore, I cannot comment further on that matter.
The noble and learned Lord asked about the former governor. There was a further question regarding resources to improve security and whether they were refused to him. The area manager asked the former governor to carry out a re-profiling exercise before consideration could be given to providing additional resources. That re-profiling exercise has been carried out by the present governor and, as has been widely expected, has led to a release of further resources. The improvements to security arrangements were carried out by the new governor without those new resources in place. The resources put into Blantyre House relate to resettlement work.
I have dealt with the noble and learned Lord's point on the policy formulation for resettlement establishments within the Prison Service. We are developing that policy.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, there is a matter that concerns a number of noble Lords. Perhaps I may press the Minister on the matter. According to what he has said, the Government place much importance on resettlement. The governor did precisely the same. Yet the area manager was in conflict with that particular governor. Where precisely do the Government stand in relation to area managers who are in conflict with governors over the running of prisons?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I accept that that relationship is sometimes difficult and challenging, but clearly it must be right that there is a "negotiated" relationship. However, ultimately operational decisions rest with the director-general. That has to be right.
I want to try to go through all the questions and points. I hope that your Lordships' House will bear with me as I do that. The noble and learned Lord rightly asked whether the Government are satisfied that any senior officer directing our policy should combine with it other duties such as director of regimes. The answer is yes, and that is already part of the present director's responsibilities.
1192
The noble and learned Lord also asked about our attitude towards boards of visitors. It has always been the case that the Government value the independent advice given to Ministers by boards about the NA, a y in which prisoners are treated and the state of the administration and premises within Prison Service establishments. My right honourable friend the Minister with responsibility for prisons and probation expects to receive by Easter a report on a review of boards of visitors that he asked Peter Lloyd to undertake, which is aimed at helping make boards even more effective than they are at present.
Furthermore, the noble and learned Lord asked what weight was to be given to future warnings from boards of visitors that there might be problems with relationships in their prisons. Again I want to put on record that we take these matters very seriously and that they are properly investigated. It is open to boards at any time to raise any of those concerns with Ministers and senior Prison Service managers. All issues raised formally by boards are and will continue to be fully investigated carefully by the Prison Service. The way in which issues are raised and reported upon by boards is being considered by the review group with a view to helping boards focus and report more clearly on matters of concern.
Then the noble and learned Lord asked for an assessment of damage done to Blantyre House in the view of the service. The Prison Service accepts that the new governor needs support. He has received that support. That support is being actively provided to regain the important atmosphere of trust in the prison. That comes back to a key point raised by the noble and learned Lord at the outset. As I said earlier, it is regretted that the damage caused in the course of the search has had some lasting impact. But we need to move on. That is the point I tried to make at the outset of my remarks and in summarising where we are now.
The noble and learned Lord asked whether Blantyre House is to be recategorised and whether the board of visitors will be consulted. It is not usual to consult a board of visitors on matters of security policy. That would not be right and I think that the noble and learned Lord will understand that. But the board is welcome at any time to raise this question with the governor. That will always be an important consideration.
I am in danger of greatly running over my time. Noble Lords raised a number of other points. I was asked about planning for the search—I would refute that it started eight months beforehand—and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, asked about education matters. I want also to put on record our great regret that the chapel had to be searched in the way in which it was searched. Sadly, however, it has to be said that from time to time chapels within prisons need to be searched. I would reflect that those searches need to be carried out with the greatest possible sensitivity. We will endeavour to ensure that that happens in the future. I was grateful for the comments and observations of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans, which will be taken to heart.

1193
One could say and put on record much more about Blantyre House. It is an excellent institution. It is in many ways a flagship and provides a great service to the community and to the nation. Those points must be properly acknowledged. There is no desire on the part of the Government to undermine the resettlement estate in any way, shape or form. We think that this debate, although perhaps, some might say, a little uncomfortable for government, is an important debate to be had. I am most grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to it. For those questions that I have not managed to answer as fully as your Lordships would have liked, I shall prepare written responses and try to ensure that those written responses are received promptly, as is my custom. It has been a most valuable debate for me and for the Government and Prison Service.
7.22 p.m.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: My Lords, I am most grateful to those who, at a not particularly convenient hour, have stayed and taken part in the debate or who have listened to it with such attention. One is very nearly disarmed by the Minister, but not entirely. This has been, as the noble Lord put it, a rather uncomfortable debate for the Government and of course we all want to move on, as he, very understandably, was very anxious to move on. However, the events at Blantyre House have merited the parliamentary scrutiny that has been given, both by the Select Committee and by this House. I hope that the Government will consider very carefully the questions that have been asked. When the Minister writes to me with further answers, perhaps he would be good enough to place those answers in the Library.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am happy to give that assurance.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord.
In conclusion, I think that the whole House will agree that there is a lot of unfinished business here for the Government and for the Prison Service in remedying the consequences of what happened at Blantyre House on 5th May. We welcome the commitment to resettlement but we will be looking carefully to see how that commitment is translated into practical policies and improvements. With those few words and a reiteration of my gratitude, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Elderly and Disabled People
7.25 p.m.
Lord Ashley of Stokerose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will reconsider their refusal to pay for personal care for elderly and disabled people in residential homes.
1194
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of this debate is to criticise the Government's refusal to pay for personal care charges for old and disabled people who are unable to fend for themselves; and to seek a change of policy. But first I want to congratulate the Government on their decision that the National Health Service will meet the costs of registered nursing time spent on providing, delegating or supervising care in any setting.
That decision was taken within the context of the largest ever sustained increase in NHS funding, with its budget growing by a half in cash terms and by one-third in real terms over five years. I believe that the Government deserve more bouquets than brickbats. Those really are very considerable achievements. But they are ruining a good record by refusing to accept the Royal Commission's main recommendation that necessary personal care for elderly and disabled people, wherever they live, should be free. This refusal will undoubtedly cause severe hardship for many vulnerable people. It is indefensible and unacceptable.
We need to be very clear what we are talking about. Personal care is not some little old lady being given a cup of tea and perhaps a nice toasted crumpet by a kindly neighbour while they chat before a blazing fire about "East Enders". Personal care, needed because of illness or frailty, is usefully defined by the Royal Commission. It involves helping with eating, drinking, toileting, washing, dressing and undressing, as well as assisting with mobility and personal safety. Without this personal care, frail people will sicken and die before their time—a bit more slowly, perhaps, than people deprived of vital medicines, but they die nevertheless and with less dignity. Personal care is as necessary for health and well being as medical care. It is preposterous to differentiate, indeed discriminate, between the two.
The Government appear to believe that charging for personal care does not lead to people going without vital services. I find that absolutely incredible. Personal care is costly and I am sure that many people are denying themselves what they need because they cannot afford it.
Although most of us grow old. not all of us eventually require personal care. But many do and it inevitably leads to costs as well as to personal distress and loss of dignity. I share the Royal Commission's view that the risk of that happening and the resulting personal care costs should be shared by us all, just as NHS provision leads to us all sharing medical risks and costs.
In its report the Royal Commission highlighted the plight of people with Alzheimer's disease and recommended that the provision should be the same for those with chronic conditions as for those with acute conditions. With the present policy suggested by the Government, that will not happen because anyone with a cognitive impairment is less likely to be recognised as requiring intensive "nursing" support as currently defined by the Government. Their needs may not be assessed as health needs and they will not be covered. They are unlikely to benefit from the

1195
Government's willingness to pay for nursing care as others do. A fresh definition of "nursing care" might help but it would stretch the meaning of the English language and prove a bureaucratic nightmare.
Yet the Government and those supporting their policy argue that making personal care free would not be effective. They claim that it would target substantial resources without necessarily improving services; that it would deprive elderly and disabled people of planned improvements in other areas; and that it would help only the wealthy. Those are considerable allegations. To see how misguided that analysis is, let us look at the facts. Currently, personal care has to be paid for by anyone with assets of more than £16,000— soon to be increased to £18,000. Since assets include the value of any property owned, and rightly so, millions of people, many of them living just above the poverty line, will be charged. It is simply not true that free personal care helps only the wealthy. It helps millions of those living just above the poverty line—and in middle England. Furthermore, it is unbelievable that, if properly administered, it would not improve services. I simply cannot believe that, with this change, services would not be improved.
The argument based on robbing Peter to pay Paul being used by opponents of free personal care is an ancient one. It is a convenient way of refusing to accept the costs of changes in society. Of course it is based on the false assumption of a fixed pot of gold. It involves a passive acquiescence in the Government's allocation of funding. Critics of the Royal Commission object to free personal care, but objections are never made to free NHS provision or free education provision.
Today, people's priorities are changing. One in four people become incapacitated. There is now widespread fear among the old and disabled that they will be among the unlucky ones. They will be unable to cope with the consequences and the costs. I believe that the Government need to listen and to reassess their priorities.
Some of the changes in the charging arrangements for residential care proposed by the Government are helpful but, frankly, I am sceptical about the loan proposal. It goes like this: if an elderly person needs permanent residential care, does he or she really want the worry of maintaining a property that can no longer be used and that would be sold on their death to repay a loan plus interest charges? Would the property be rented out? Would the tenants damage it? Would they move out when they were asked to do so? Would vandals break in? This proposal offers no advantage to elderly people or their heirs. It makes sense only if there is a prospect of the person returning home. Short-term loans may be helpful, but not loans over the long term.
I suggest this to the Government. As a percentage of our future national income, according to the Royal Commission, paying for personal care will not be a costly burden. It is a natural step forward in our development of social and health support. It will improve the lives of countless old and disabled people. It will avoid the troubling and complex dispute about
1196
what constitutes nursing care, so vividly described by Age Concern. It will remove the burden of fear and it will ease personal anguish. It will give vulnerable people a sense of security in old age. I urge the Government to think again.
7.33 p.m.
Lord Rix: My Lords, I have been vexing the Minister with imponderable questions on the subject before us in the debate this evening, and I have the noble Lord, Lord Ashley of Stoke, to thank for a further opportunity to be a nuisance. I should add that the Minister has, as always, been courteous and helpful, but I regret that I am not yet able to add the epithet "convincing".
Those of us who have accumulated more than a few sere and yellow leaves must all declare a latent personal interest in the topic of who pays for what kind of care—especially if we have also accumulated a few pounds sterling. The Government have moved forward in the matters of both capital disregards and payment for nursing care, and it would be churlish not to acknowledge that. Further movement on capital—indeed, the eventual abolition of the capital limit—has been promised in respect of elderly people, though not, I understand, in respect of disabled people below pension age—and thereby hangs a question. On the other side of Hadrian's Wall, they have, as is their right, plans to do things rather differently. Learning from the Scots would be nothing new for the English.
What has not been answered, or indeed proposed for answer, is the argument that a line drawn between what a nurse does and what someone else does is simply not sustainable as a dividing line between modest riches and relative poverty. If non-nursing care has to be paid for, people below pension age with capital resources will exhaust them before they reach pension age. Matters would, of course, be very different if the capital rules for residential care ran in line with the much more realistic capital exemption for inheritance tax. With the rules as they are at present, people whose care needs arise after pension age will rapidly lose their hard-won capital as they pay for what they had thought their taxes and contributions had already paid for. Such older sufferers will inevitably include people who have been carers throughout much of their adult lives and had been hoping to settle some protective resources on their disabled adult son or daughter.
I could say much of what I want to say with reference to people with other forms of intellectual disability or cognitive impairment, groups already touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Ashley of Stoke. I refer to those whose condition means a need for intensive support and some loss of control over their own destinies. But I propose to concentrate on learning disability because it so well illustrates wider anxieties about the nursing/non-nursing dividing line. What I have to say about this group could readily be extrapolated to what could be said about people with Huntington's Chorea, Alzheimer's disease, or other mental and physical impairments possibly caused, for example, by strokes. I accept that the number of

1197
people with learning disabilities who have substantial personal assets is relatively small. However, if the distinction between nursing and personal care does not work here, I doubt that it works anywhere.
I have huge respect for the high quality professionalism of learning disability nurses. Some made the large institutions a little less awful, despite appalling surroundings and woefully inadequate resources. Some were pioneers of the movement to residential homes in the community. Some, as community learning disability nurses, have held together community services in grave danger of falling apart and have secured—against the recalcitrance of those who seem to want to bar the way—access to mainstream health services for people with learning disabilities. I shall pause there lest the right reverend Prelate accuse me of stealing from Ecclesiasticus the whole of that resonant passage which begins:
"Let us now praise famous men".
I am leading up to the observation that the introduction of the NHS in 1948 converted care attendants to nurses, and care to nursing. Furthermore, developments since have meant that much of learning disability caring is done by the person best qualified to do it, who may or may not be a nurse. In location A it might be a nurse. In location B it might be someone else with the relevant skills. For example, behaviour management might fall to a nurse, a psychologist or a social worker. I should add that, as we increasingly recognise the wide range of abilities among people with learning disabilities, and the potential of many, I expect to see other people with learning disabilities among those trained and qualified to support those with more severe disabilities.
The complications of trying to maintain the nursing/ personal care distinction get worse. Those nurses who entered residential care, often in leadership roles when the hospitals closed, may or may not have maintained their registration as nurses. Some have maintained their registration, but you cannot practise as a nurse in a residential care home even if you are one. So what they do—even if based on nursing knowledge and competencies undertaken by someone registered with the United Kingdom Central Council for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting—will not count as nursing care. There are procedures, such as administration per rectum of medication for epilepsy, which might be thought pre-eminently a nursing function, and may well be done by a nurse if one is present, but which is commonly done by someone else who was originally trained by a nurse.
It seems to me that, despite evident good intentions, the Government have landed themselves with confused principles and inoperable practice. The scheme will fall down every time someone with personal resources is getting care on the nursing borderline. Those who need long-term care and support are not where they are by choice, and we are not arguing about options in their lives but about basic necessities. Moreover, these are necessities over and above the accommodation, food, light and heating and daily living expenses which all of us have to meet.
1198
The necessities we are debating are the care costs which most of us do not incur because we are fortunate enough to be able to do these things for ourselves.
I do hope that the Government will think again because what I venture to call their interim conclusions are not, in my view, sustainable as a long-term solution. That is, I assume, why our Scottish neighbours are thinking of doing things differently. Improbable as it may seem, I do know people with learning difficulties who are both quite well off and well advanced in years, and whose main carers are not nurses practising as nurses. While the political parties are committing themselves to various visions of the brave new world, it would be good to have a government-led all-party agreement of vision and common sense embodied in the decision to make essential care free.
To return to Ecclesiasticus, such a comprehensive and rational policy would ensure that those responsible for the policy were not among the people who leave no memorial. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, would wish, modest as he is, to be remembered along with his ministerial colleagues for a major advance in social policy. I look forward to his reply.
7.42 p.m.
Baroness Barker: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, for giving the House this most welcome opportunity to discuss one of the most contentious aspects of the Government's proposals to reform health and social care. Noble Lords may have noticed that Clause 48 is one of the shorter clauses in the Health and Social Care Bill. I confidently predict that it will generate by far the most debate. It is timely that your Lordships are discussing what is, in effect, the subject of that clause today, having already seen the text of the Bill and heard the Second Reading in another place a week ago.
In the daily lives of frail older people, distinctions between nursing care and personal care are often fine and not readily apparent. The Government's decision to reject the majority recommendation of the Royal Commission that personal care, as defined in its report, should be universally free immediately begged the question of what the Government mean when they talk of nursing care and personal care. So far, there has been no straight answer and the contortions of Ministers in another place as they try to avoid giving a definite answer to that question is a growing cause for concern.
I hope that your Lordships had an enjoyable recess, particularly the extra week's holiday, which was well deserved after last year's marathon Session. However, perhaps like me your Lordships felt the seasonal cheer evaporate as the Government's list of holiday reading began to emerge. The Health and Social Care Bill, published 21st December; the domiciliary care charges guidance, issued 3rd January; followed swiftly, a couple of days later, by the supporting people charges guidance; the intermediate care guidance, due any day; and the continuing care guidance, promised for

1199
December 1999, now described as "coming soon". The national standards framework on services for older people must, one fears, be coming by rail, because it was announced months ago. We have been waiting for it for ages and there is no sign of it yet. Altogether, one gets a sense not of joined up government, but a jumble of government, coming towards us.
I list all those publications, the contents of each of which is interrelated, because to do so illustrates the extent of the major changes which are taking place in the fields of health and social care. However, welcome as many of these reforms are to those on these Benches, we are fearful that the whole edifice of social care is being built on a foundation which is wholly unclear. The noble Lord, Lord Ashley, alluded eloquently to the lack of a clear and inclusive definition of nursing care and, consequently, confusion about personal care.
Since the publication of the report of the Royal Commission, there has been a great deal of discussion about the extent to which it is possible in practice to differentiate personal care from health care. Assistance with intimate tasks such as washing, bathing, dressing and toileting have always been a part of nursing care. When a person is unable to perform such routine tasks of daily living, there is usually an underlying physical cause. Moreover, the inability either to attend to one's own personal care or to have it carried out by someone else frequently and regularly would, in most instances, rapidly lead to problems which require medical attention. It is for that reason that many of us on these Benches believe that the Government's rejection of the majority report of the Royal Commission is wrong. Not being able to have a bath for weeks on end is an indignity which no older person should have to suffer for fear that he or she cannot afford the help.
The noble Lords, Lord Ashley and Lord Rix, have stated in great detail that it would be wrong to concentrate, as many in this debate so far have done, solely upon one condition; namely, Alzheimer's. There are many reasons why people need help with personal care, not least of which is simple frailty following a fall or the simple frailty of old age. To single out one condition for an exemption would be to compound one unfairness with another.
Members of this House and Members of another place, along with a range of organisations, including the RCN, CAB, Alzheimer's, Help the Aged and my own employer, Age Concern, have all expressed fear of the potential inequity of these proposals. Two people with identical personal care needs who receive exactly the same help may face entirely different costs—one having to pay and one not—either because of where they live or because the person who carries out that care is or is not a registered nurse. So far, the Government have failed to refute that interpretation of their proposals. If that analysis is incorrect, the Government must explain why, and do so unequivocally now.
There are three reasons why the Government should make an explicit statement about the definition of nursing care and why they should do it soon. First,
1200
their proposals are open to widely varying interpretations, some of which may or may not be wholly erroneous. For example, there is a widespread assumption that most nursing type care in nursing homes will be free. However, if the care is provided not by a registered nurse but by a care assistant, it may have to be paid for. In fact, it is arguable that a great deal more care may have to paid for in nursing homes where a large number of care assistants are employed and supervised by a small number of registered nurses than in care homes where district nurses provide frequent nursing services. Older people must not be misled into thinking that their care in nursing homes will be free when it will not.
Secondly, a major component of the Health and Social Care Bill is the proposal to integrate health and social services much more closely than ever before in structural terms. There is the potential for small cottage hospitals, in which all care is free, to be redesignated as nursing homes, in which personal care has to be paid for. If that is going to happen, older people need to know.
Thirdly, in another place on 10th January, in response to questions—some from his own Benches—about what is and what is not deemed to be nursing care and therefore free, the Secretary of State said:
"It would depend on the assessment".—[Official Report, Commons, 10/1/01: col. 1093.]
He followed that up, at col. 1094, by saying:
"Who can make the assessment for free nursing, other than a nurse?".
There is someone else who can be called upon to make that kind of decision—a judge. That should come as no surprise to the department that was involved in the Coughlan case. It is highly likely that such matters will be determined in court when people who feel themselves to have been treated inequitably inevitably seek redress. Far be it from me to be disparaging about the legal profession—a dangerous pursuit in your Lordships' House, blessed as it is by the presence of so many noble and learned Lords—but I do not believe that courts should be the arbiters of this important matter. For if issues such as these are resolved in court, it will be those with the greatest capacity for articulation rather than those with the greatest need who end up with the support that they need—and that is wrong.
I hope I have explained why, in the absence of an undertaking to fund "personal care", there is an urgent need to define what is "nursing care". In order to begin to resolve the issue, I ask the Minister to include in his response an answer to the following question. The Government's current definition of "nursing care" is set out in Clause 48 of the Health and Social Care Bill. Does that, or does it not, include the cost of the time taken by a care attendant to carry out a task which is supervised or delegated by a registered nurse? If the Minister will cover that point in his reply, your Lordships will be one step closer to ensuring that older people know exactly where they stand and the Government's welcome reforms will be able to go ahead on a sustainable basis.
7.50 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans: My Lords, I welcome this debate standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, and thank him for introducing it. I consider it an honour to take part in a debate that he has promoted. I do so out of a passionate conviction that a society's notion of whether it may be called "civilised" is measured by its attitude to the needs of the most vulnerable. But it goes deeper than that: today's wealth and well-being are, for each of us, the result of our forebears' labour. If we forget the enormous debt we owe to the past, we become prey to smug and myopic arrogance.
On grounds of morality, compassion and common humanity, the elderly in our country deserve, and need, the best and most effective care that we can provide. We should be deeply ashamed of the way in which many of our elderly are treated and of the state of some of the psycho-geriatric wards in our hospitals.
I recognise, of course, that this debate is not about hospital provision but about care in residential homes. However, I am trying to place it in the broader context of how the elderly are treated in our society. Therefore, perhaps I may raise three questions.
The first has already been referred to. It relates to the Royal Commission's recommendation that personal care should be free at the point of delivery. When a Royal Commission has laboured long and hard and when it has come up with an equitable and just solution, for the life of me I cannot see why it should be ignored.
So why are the elderly, especially those suffering from long-term conditions such as dementia, to be penalised? Also, I fail to see how, without a massive increase in inspectorial bureaucracy, the definition of what constitutes "nursing care" and what constitutes "personal care" can be made to work. Other speakers have referred to this matter and I make no apology for doing so. If a patient requires feeding, for example, is that "personal care"; or, because that feeding keeps the person relatively well, is it to be classed as "nursing care"? The idea of inspectors with clipboards and watches touring residential homes to determine whether the definitions—which do not yet exist—are being complied with conjures up a picture worthy of Kafka.
Secondly, in common with many others, I look forward to the publication of the national service framework which will for the first time set national standards in relation to care for older people. That is to be welcomed. However, can the Minister assure me that the national service framework will include—or that it already includes, at least in draft form—within its definition of standards the right of elderly people and staff in residential homes to receive spiritual care?
I pay tribute to the thousands of clergy and lay people and to those of all faiths who currently offer daily pastoral and spiritual care to the elderly in the community on a voluntary basis. It would be tragic, not to say immoral, if the national service framework sought to define care purely in material terms and
1202
failed to recognise that all human beings, not least the elderly, have spiritual needs, hopes and fears which require to be met in compassionate and sensitive ways.
My third point is, I hope, a simple one. Her Majesty's Government are in the process of setting up a national children's fund, with a budget of over £450 million. It will be distributed during this year and the following two years. Its purpose is to,
"help vulnerable children and young people, listening to their needs and supporting them in breaking the cycle of poverty and disadvantage".
It is a welcome development. But old people, too, are frequently trapped in a cycle of poverty and disadvantage—poverty and disadvantage which never receive the public attention that they deserve, notwithstanding the huge effort of organisations such as Age Concern. I pay public tribute to that organisation and all that it stands for. A teddy bear with an eye-patch brings the money pouring in; people are shown an old person with a stick, and the money stays put. Would it not be wonderful if, for the next three years, the BBC ran an "Old People in Need" appeal, and gave it the kind of energy and enthusiasm that it gives to the "Children in Need" appeal? I raise the question, guessing, sadly, that the response of the BBC governors to the suggestion will probably be negative, because the challenge to change public perception would be thought too difficult—or, in BBC-speak, "not sexy enough". I await with interest any response to the challenge. I am almost certain that the response will be absolute silence.
Will Her Majesty's Government, believing as they do—as I and many others do—in freeing children from cycles of deprivation and poverty—now make available at least a similar sum of £450 million for elderly people? If not, why not? The pattern of administering the fund could be the same—that is, it could be administered by community foundations and local charities. Again, I want to honour and pay tribute to all the community foundations I know which do an outstanding job. If that fund could be put rapidly into place, it would do much to raise hope among carers who work with the elderly. It would be another signal from the Government that older people should be given by the nation the dignity and respect that they so richly deserve.
7.59 p.m.
Lord Joffe: My Lords, I, too, should like to express my appreciation to the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, for raising this important issue, which is of such concern to many elderly people and their families. It is with regret that I do not support the noble Lord's Question, as it is clear that much pain is being caused to many elderly and disabled residents by the present arrangements.
The noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, and I were cosignatories to the dissenting report by the Royal Commission on long-term care. Unlike the majority report, we did not recommend that the burden for all personal care should come out of public funds, for reasons that I shall touch upon later in my speech.

1203
In considering the Question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, it is of critical importance to note that the Government are already paying, and have agreed to continue to pay, for all or some of the personal care of 75 per cent of the elderly in residential homes. These 75 per cent are the residents who cannot afford to pay for care themselves. In practice, Britain has a limited form of social insurance. Everyone is insured against not being cared for because they will always be provided with care free if they cannot afford to pay for it themselves. Accordingly, the Question tabled by the noble Lord relates only to the 25 per cent of elderly people in residential homes who can afford to pay for their own care because they have assets in excess of £16,000.
In arriving at a decision on free personal care for all, regard has to be paid to the unequivocal statement made by government in their response to the Royal Commission's report. That response states in paragraph 2.6 that making free personal care available to all would consume most of the additional resources they plan to make available for older people through the NHS Plan. I regret that I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, that the additional cost is not so high. In practice, the additional cost of providing free personal care to the 25 per cent of residents who can actually afford to pay for it themselves is £1.1 billion initially, rising to £6.4 billion in the year 2050. Indeed, if government accepted this proposal, it has to be remembered that what we would be talking about in effect is simply the transfer of £1.1 today to the public purse of a burden presently borne by those residents who can afford to pay for their own care.
Once there are only limited funds available, the question of how best to use them raises the issue of priorities. In our dissenting report we concluded that there are at least two higher priorities than free personal care for the 25 per cent of elderly residents, some of whom are wealthy and all of whom are able to pay, either fully or partially, for their own personal care. The two priorities were, first, providing an adequate level and quality of personal care for the elderly who are unable to pay for it themselves; and, secondly, the provision of extra support for the millions of informal carers.
From the evidence that we heard at the commission, it was clear that the amount and quality of care being provided was inadequate in many areas due to a shortage of funds. In this regard, it is instructive to study the evidence of Age Concern, the organisation that exists for the purpose of protecting the interests of the elderly. In its final paper to the Royal Commission, it unequivocally stated:
"However, no matter what the funding or administrative system, the heart of the current problem is inadequate funding. However financed … more money must be set aside for those who will need care as they age. The result of the failure to take account of this and to plan accordingly is damaging short termism".
Evidence to the same effect was given by the local authorities, which raised the issue of the rationing of services to elderly people as a result of the shortage of funds which in turn led, understandably, to the limited
1204
available funds being applied to those with the severest needs, thereby depriving those with lesser, but very real needs, of the care that they required.
I move on to the second priority; namely, informal carers. Twice as much care is provided informally as formally. But for this provision of care by children, spouses, relatives and friends, the burden on public funds would increase by as much as 70 per cent of the current cost. A decline in informal caring has long been predicted, due to more marital break-ups, more mobile lifestyles and the increasing number of women in employment, among other factors. If there were a reduction in informal care of only 20 per cent by the year 2051, it is estimated that it would lead to an increase in public expenditure then of £3.8 billion.
The strain on carers, many of whom are themselves elderly, is almost unbearable in many cases. Many carers say that they are at the end of their tether; and that, if they are not supported, they will give up. Informal carers, who sacrifice so much to care for the people they love desperately, need additional support and particularly respite care. They deserve it on the grounds of natural justice. But, as it happens, if they do not get it and stop caring as a result, the cost of replacing them with paid care will fall on government. I suggest that better care for the elderly who cannot afford to pay for it and more support for informal carers are higher priorities than personal care for those who can afford it.
In conclusion, I should like to make it clear that 1 am not saying that there is no case for free personal care for the elderly who do not qualify for it at present. Obviously, using up their lifetime savings causes severe grief and anguish to elderly people, especially when that involves selling the homes in which they have lived for much of their lives and which they had hoped to pass on to their heirs. If there is additional funding for the care of the elderly, it would he appropriate for consideration to be given to paying for personal care for all. However, such a claim for additional funding would need to be weighed against the natural desire of taxpayers to keep public spending low and against all the other unmet calls on public funds to determine where in the hierarchy of priorities it fell.
8.7 p.m.
Lord Lipsey: My Lords, I am sorry that the vagary of the draw tonight has given the House Tweedled um followed by Tweedledee. However, I am privileged to follow the noble Lord, Lord Joffe, in this debate. We spent many agonised hours—I do not exaggerate—as members of the Royal Commission deliberating over these issues; indeed, hours, days and nights. It is not easy to sign a minority report, especially when, admittedly, one knows that much distress is being caused, as outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Ashley. Much distress is being caused to elderly people who thought that everything would be paid for but who now find that that is not so. As I say, this was not an easy route to follow. Nevertheless, as the debate has progressed and the Government's package has been

1205
unveiled, I have become even more strongly of the opinion that we did the right thing and that our recommendations are correct.
We are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, for raising this issue and for his moving opening speech. He rightly stressed the virtues of free personal care, and I disagree with little of what the noble Lord said. However, some of the vices have also to be recognised. The noble Lord, Lord Joffe, quoted the figures from the Royal Commission as rising to £6 billion by the middle of the next century. But, to my mind, that is a vast underestimate. I speak as an economist rather than anything else in this respect, but if you cut the price of something to zero people will consume a great deal more of it.
If care were free in residential homes—and we may get a controlled, or uncontrolled, experiment on this in Scotland, if they continue along the unwise route that they have taken—many people who are being cared for at home at present with the aid of their families would move to residential homes, or nursing home care, and that is where they would spend the rest of their lives. That is not what they want. It is an unfortunate side-effect of a well-meant policy.
Further, where will the money go? We cannot get away from the fact that for some of us public spending is very much an instrument to help the worse off. However, none of the extra spending on personal care would help the worse off. Some 70 per cent of people who receive the care at the moment have it paid for by the state. Therefore, only the better off 30 per cent would benefit from the change.
I do not for a moment say that those people are wealthy. But they are well above the average in terms of wealth. They comprise the top 30 per cent. Indeed, in most cases, their heirs will benefit from the measure as, on average, the elderly people receive the care for two years. The measure will enable these elderly people to leave their homes to their children. That is a perfectly reasonable thing to want to do. I do not wish to do it, but it is a perfectly reasonable thing to want to do. If one wants to do that, one can prepare for that step now by insuring oneself privately. No speaker in the debate has so far mentioned that before Christmas the Government announced, following great pressure from some Members on these Benches, that long-term care products to enable better-off people to insure themselves would be properly regulated so that snake oil salesmen did not sell them to vulnerable people. That is a tremendous breakthrough and the Government deserve credit for that, even if it took them some time to achieve it.
My next point arises from the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, whose comments on these issues I listen to carefully. She said that it is a scandal that many old people cannot take a bath for weeks. It is a scandal. That is why we do not make personal care our priority. It is scandalous that under the present system the most disabled older people living at home receive four hours' care per week. That is why these tough decisions about priorities and resources have to be made.
1206
I welcome the fact that the bulk of the money the Government are making available will be allocated to those people. It is £900 million. It is not small beer. However, I regret deeply that the Government have "wrapped up" the money under the title, "intermediate care" which means nothing to anyone. However, in practice, it means those extra aids and adaptations which enable a person living at home to get in and out of the bath. Therefore he or she does not spend weeks without taking a bath. Intermediate care covers the period between someone's discharge from hospital and their return to their own home where they want to be. Intermediate care enables them to be properly cared for and looked after. It ensures that they are not shoved into a nursing home with no possibility of exit or improvement.
When we compare the Government's package with the free personal care package proposed by the Royal Commission, I should point out that the Royal Commission specifically rejected the proposal put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Joffe, and myself that no elderly person should ever again have to sell their home during their lifetime to fund their care. Under the Royal Commission's proposal, people would still be forced to sell their homes to pay for their care.
Carers were eloquently referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Joffe. More money is made available for them—I accept that it is not enough—in the Government's package. I am afraid that they were dealt with in what I can only term an offhand way in the Royal Commission's report. Of course it understood the value of carers, but, fixated as it was on this single holy grail of free personal care that would solve all our problems, carers were brushed aside. However, they are catered for in the Government's package.
I refer to free nursing care. I understand the problems of definition and that the Government's definition is not the same as that of the minority group. I should not be surprised if the Minister does not have cause to regret that he did not adopt our simple definition but instead entered the rather complex waters that will be discussed at length in this House over the next few months. However, I welcome free nursing care which will deal with the worst anomaly in this area. Nothing will deal with all the anomalies. Free personal care will not do so. Why is it right that if an elderly person needs help with eating that should be paid for, but if they need help to cook their food they should have to pay for that themselves? That is the Royal Commission's recommendation. It is at least as anomalous as the situation we are discussing.
Therefore free personal care does not get rid of all the anomalies. One creates new ones to replace the old ones. One pre-empts the resources that should he allocated to better conditions and better care for old people. I could not agree more with every word that the right reverend Prelate said. To my shame I had not thought much about the state of elderly people in our country before I sat on the Royal Commission. Much of what I saw shocked me. However, it is because I believe passionately that we must do more for older people, and that in particular we must do more for

1207
poorer older people, that with great regret we had to reject the proposal for free personal care in favour of a package in the minority report which I am delighted to say is to a large extent reflected in the response of the Government.
8.15 p.m.
Baroness Greengross: My Lords, I too welcome the debate initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Ashley. It is a great privilege to take part in a debate with so many speakers who have enormous experience and understanding of the complex issues involved.
However, I must start by expressing disappointment that the Government have moved so slowly to resolve this difficult issue. The Leeds case was first considered by the health ombudsman in 1993 or 1994, but, apparently, we are still a long way from a clear definition of nursing care. I acknowledge the hard work carried out by the Minister, his colleagues and officials as well as that of the Royal Commissioners. We must acknowledge that this is a complex matter.
However, there is a worry that the Department of Health does not seem to be carrying with it many of the organisations which have a great amount of expertise in this field, including the charity which I headed until last summer, Age Concern—I thank the right reverend Prelate for his kind words about that organisation—the Methodist Homes for the Aged and the Abbeyfield Society. That is both worrying and sad.
When the NHS Plan and the Government's response to the Royal Commission were published in July 2000, I asked a supplementary question of the Minister about the definition of nursing care. I was greatly encouraged to note that the Government's response to the Royal Commission stated that,
"in future, the NHS will meet the costs of registered nurse time spent on providing, delegating or supervising care in any setting".
I thought that that would mean that we could go beyond what most people consider to be basic nursing provided by a nurse. That is what it appeared to mean. I am now worried to learn that the Health and Social Care Bill, which is before the other place, offers what seems to be a much narrower definition of nursing care—indeed, I gather that it does not define the NHS's responsibilities at all but merely debars social services from purchasing such care. I fear that the Bill will need radical amendment in this House to determine how nursing care will be more broadly defined to include those elements of care delegated or supervised by a nurse. This is what older people and their relatives and carers desperately need to hear. After a decade of muddle, with worrying and often distressing consequences, this debate offers us an opportunity to rehearse our arguments so that we can get this matter right once and for all when the House considers the Health and Social Care Bill.
I refer briefly to three other matters. The first concerns capital limits. I especially welcome the three-month time-limit before a person's home is included in the means test. Given that people should only be in residential care when they cannot cope at home any longer—that is, after all, the point of the community
1208
care policy—and that this usually happens in the last year of their life, perhaps the period ought to be extended to at least six months. That would make a great difference as it takes a long time for the necessary arrangements to be made for the transition to end-of-life long-term care. The capital limits that "bite in" thereafter remain rather low. It might have been better if the Government had been a little more radical in that regard. Perhaps it might be reconsidered. Where does the figure of 40,000 homes—that is over a hundred every day—being sold to pay for care home fees come from?
The regulation of long-term care insurance is essential. I pay tribute to the work of the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, in that respect. It is essential that that is undertaken quickly.
Lastly, I refer to long-term care home fees. About four years ago, when I headed up Age Concern, we undertook a survey with the Royal College of Nursing to estimate the costs of nursing care in a nursing home. It concluded that the cost was around £150 per week. At the time some nursing homes were charging over £350 per week. That would have meant that self-funders would still have had to find about £200 per week if the nursing element of their care was funded by the state. This is now to happen. I have not seen any figures on the estimated cost of personal care per person in long-term care, but I find it difficult to believe that it will reduce the overall figure much—except for those in residential care who would benefit. In other words, it will still be expensive for the self-funders to pay for the hotel costs of their care. Even the cheapest bed and breakfast today costs £20 per night or £150 per week. Thankfully, the quality of care in long-term care homes is rising, and will rise further once the key recommendations of the Fit for the Future proposals are implemented. Some modern care homes are akin to mid-range hotels which would charge about £35 per night or £250 per week. So quality comes with a price. I believe that we must all be more honest about this, so that once and for all we can be clear about what we as a society and in particular our older population, the families and carers, can expect.
8.22 p.m.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Ashley of Stoke, on raising this crucial issue. I found the case he made utterly convincing. It was backed up by a number of other noble Lords who raised vivid illustrations of the problems with the Government's policy. That said, however, it has been a privilege, as the right reverend Prelate made clear, to take part in this debate. While profoundly disagreeing with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, nevertheless I fully recognise the conviction and force underlying what he said. In the view of my party, the Government's free nursing care plans set out in the Health and Social Care Bill are fatally flawed. They set up an artificial and unsustainable distinction between nursing and personal care. As many noble Lords have made clear, that is unjust. It means that many people in nursing homes or at home will still be means tested

1209
for care such as being dressed, bathed or washed, which they would not pay for in an NHS hospital. That will be exacerbated by the continuing low level of the means-tested threshold.
No one has a brief for the current regime. The system is complex and entitlement is unclear. Who pays for care is dependent on for whom and where the care is provided. My party found the key recommendation of the majority report of the Royal Commission—that personal care should be free at the point of use—highly persuasive and we regard this as a key priority for future expenditure.
People in long-term care incur three kinds of cost: first, living costs; secondly, housing costs; and, thirdly, personal care costs which arise from frailty or disability. Living and housing costs are legitimate items which people should generally be expected to meet themselves. Some of those costs may fall to be met through income maintenance but they are costs that fall on us all and reflect personal choices and lifestyles. The straightforward living and housing costs of staying in residential care should remain the responsibility of the individual, subject to means testing.
However, personal care costs fall heavily and unexpectedly and are beyond the control of the individual. For that reason we believe that personal care costs should be exempted from means testing in all settings and instead based on an assessment of need. The Royal Commission defines personal care as the care needs that give rise to major additional costs of frailty or disability associated with old age.
Critics of the commission's proposals, including the two distinguished commission dissenters, stated—as they have today—that the changes proposed by the Royal Commission would give rise to an undue and massive increase in demand. But the commission makes it clear that an exemption from means testing does not mean a demand-led system. A proper system of assessment of need of the level of stability and dependency will be essential. In addition, cost control could be achieved by the determination of a maximum figure for personal care costs. Any costs exceeding this level would continue to fall on the individual and be subject to means testing. Between 100,000 and 125,000 people in residential settings would benefit from excluding personal care costs from the means test.
Personal care costs in the domiciliary setting should also be exempt from charging. Therefore, the perverse incentive mentioned by noble Lords would no longer exist.
We are not wholly negative on these Benches about the Government's plans. One recommendation, for the granting of a three month breathing space for people admitted into residential or nursing homes before they are subject to the means test, is highly welcome. However, in our view overall the Royal Commission majority recommendations offer a humane and practical formula for addressing the funding of long-term care. Personal care should be free on the basis of assessed need. Location should not
1210
matter when people need intimate care such as bathing, dressing or feeding. That care should be free. That means that the personal care element of non-residential care should also be free.
The public require a system that promotes dignity and independence by providing the support and help that people need when they need it and in the way that suits them best. As regards the arguments made by the minority members of the commission and the Government themselves on resources, in so far as we believe in a health service free at the point of need, paid for from general taxation, then it must be right to pay for all personal care after an assessment of need no matter where it is delivered. We should accept the obligation to fund it.
Furthermore, as a number of noble Lords have pointed out, the proposed definition of nursing care is far too narrow. The proposed definition of nursing care will leave care home residents unclear about what they will have to pay for. The management and delivery of care involves a variety of nursing and care staff. Who performs what task can vary depending on a person's state of health, as a number of your Lordships pointed out. The bureaucracy involved in recording billable care will be formidable and costly. Who will foot the bill? Will it be the individual, the care home manager or the NHS?
Vulnerable old and disabled people may have to pay for care which should be free. If tasks such as dressing ulcers, changing a catheter or skin care are delegated to a care assistant, they may well have a price tag attached but they will be free if performed by a registered nurse. A definition of nursing care based on who performs the task rather than on what the task involves is clearly wrong. As my noble friend Lady Barker and the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, pointed out, taken together with the provisions of the Health and Social Care Bill, and Section 48 in particular, by debarring social services from providing nursing care without placing a clear duty on the NHS to do so may well make matters worse for older people than they currently are.
Fifteen major voluntary organisations involved in the care and representation of older people have condemned the Government's plans on nursing care. The Scottish Executive is seriously considering moving down a different track and one which is much closer to the approach my party would wish to see in England and Wales. I am pessimistic at this stage, but I hope that the Government will reconsider. I believe that the cause of full funding of personal care is a popular one among the British public and that they will live to regret their current stance.
8.29 p.m.
Earl Howe: My Lords, this has been a valuable debate. The noble Lord, Lord Ashley, has taken us through what many of us agree are the key issues on a topic that, as he said, is of concern to a great number of elderly and disabled people. I welcome the opportunity to discuss these matters for the first time in any depth since the publication of the NHS Plan last summer.

1211
The Royal Commission on Long-Term Care concerned itself, broadly speaking, with two main tasks. The first was to identify mechanisms for the sustainable long-term funding of good-quality care. The second was to arrive at a fair determination of how the costs of long-term care should be shared between taxpayers and the individual. In a society made up of rich and poor, in which people's expectations of the welfare state and of residential care vary and are changing constantly, the commission's job was formidable.
The overriding criticism of the current funding regime is surely its manifest unfairness. Despite the significant increases in the means-test threshold over the years, large numbers of people are still obliged to sell their homes and other assets to pay for nursing care in their old age. Such people often feel cheated. In many instances, they have paid high taxes throughout their working lives in the expectation that by doing so they would become entitled to state-funded care once they were aged and infirm. Others, by contrast, who have not saved for their retirement at all, have all their costs paid for them by the state.
However, as we have heard this evening, the unfairness runs wider than that. Whereas nursing care is provided free in hospitals, at home and in residential homes, it has hitherto been means tested in nursing homes. That anomaly has been accentuated by the expansion of the private and voluntary nursing home sector, particularly over the past 10 years.
We waited quite a long time for the Government to respond to the Royal Commission. Nevertheless, when it came, the response contained some welcome provisions. In my judgment, the two most important are the decision to provide free nursing care in nursing homes and the three-month disregard of a person's home when he or she first enters the care system. Free nursing care will end the glaring anomaly to which I have just referred. I am sure that the disregard of a person's home will be of major benefit not only to patients, who should not have to take difficult decisions about the sale of a house at a time when they are especially vulnerable, but also to the NHS. All too often, elderly patients of modest means are unwilling to be discharged into intermediate care because of fears that they will not be able to afford the cost.
The conundrum that divided the Royal Commission, and to which the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, has drawn our attention this evening, is whether the Government should have gone further and made personal care, as well as nursing care, universally free of charge in care homes. We have yet to hear the Minister's response this evening, but I have to tell the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, that I find it difficult to take issue with the reasoning advanced by the Government in support of their decision. The dissenting section of the Royal Commission report makes a compelling case. Surely what matters to patients is that those who cannot afford to meet the cost of personal care should have that cost met for them.
1212
Much has been said this evening about the shame that is cast on a society that deprives elderly and disabled people of personal care, but already three-quarters of those in care homes have some or all of their personal care costs met by the taxpayer. Directing more public money towards relatively well-off people would neither enhance the service provided nor benefit the least well off, whom we all want to help the most. I strongly agree with all that the noble Lord, Lord Joffe, said about the value of informal care and the folly of doing anything that might discourage it.
There is, of course, a practical issue of how to distinguish nursing care from personal care. I accept that it is likely to prove problematic in many cases, and it will be no good, either, if different people around the country are subject to different rules. Any methodology that is devised for assessing people's needs must be applied universally.
However, although it may be difficult to devise a fair methodology, it certainly should not be impossible. As the dissenting note in the Royal Commission report pointed out, as did the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, in his excellent speech this evening, there are difficulties of definition wherever one draws the line between state and privately funded care, not least when one looks at the line drawn by the Royal Commission's majority report.
Nevertheless, I should be grateful for the Minister's reassurance that the Government are alive to the danger of creating perverse incentives. I have in mind the point made by Christine Hancock of the Royal College of Nursing; namely, that large amounts of nursing care are in practice delegated to care assistants. It would be undesirable to discourage such delegation merely because a care assistant rather than a registered nurse was likely to deliver the service in question. We need clarification of what is meant by paragraph 2.9 of the NHS Plan, volume 2, which refers to the NHS meeting,
"the costs of registered nurse time spent on providing, delegating or supervising care in any setting".
The Health and Social Care Bill, currently in another place, leaves the NHS's responsibilities undefined.
Two things above all are essential for the delivery of a fair assessment of a patient's care needs: professionalism and promptness. There have to be an adequate number of nurses, suitably trained, to carry out assessments in a timely manner.
If I have a criticism of the Government, it is not the same as that made by the noble Lord, Lord Ashley. My main concern is that Ministers have done far too little to address the real problem associated with long-term care, which is how to encourage future generations to make provision for themselves, and, as far as possible, to reward thrift. The note of dissent in the Royal Commission report recommended that the Government needed to introduce,
"a genuine public-private partnership in the funding of care, with private savings and private insurance making their contribution".
That section outlines some interesting suggestions for enhancing private savings in that area. So far, I have not gained the impression that the Government are

1213
particularly exercised about those issues. That is a great pity. To the extent that the state explicitly disclaims responsibility for funding personal care, it has a duty to encourage individuals to invest in their own future and, in so doing, to promote greater self-reliance. My party will announce its proposals on the issue during the next few weeks, but I should be interested to hear a little more of the Government's thinking.
The Government's response to Sutherland makes it clear that there is a balance to be struck between private and state funding of long-term care. However, that balance should not be a short-term fix. It ought to be struck for the long term, so that people can be confident that it will not change. One of the key words in the Royal Commission's remit is "sustainable". That word alone should give pause to those who call for universal state funding of personal care. The Government have gone part, but, so far, not all of the way towards creating a sustainable system for funding long-term care. My message to them is that this is unfinished business.
8.38 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, once again the House is indebted to my noble friend Lord Ashley for raising a very pertinent issue. It is clear from the contributions we have heard tonight that it may entertain us for a few moments during the passage of the Health and Social Care Bill, whenever it comes to your Lordships' House.
There can be no question but that the issue of the future care and support for older and disabled people in residential homes is very important. However, so too is the more general holistic issue of the support that we give to such people. In considering the Government's response, I reiterate that it is not simply a question of free personal care and free nursing home care. We have to look at the issue in the round and in the general context of our policies to improve the support and rehabilitation that we give, particularly to older people, but also to disabled people.
As the noble Earl, Lord Howe, remarked, the Royal Commission was established to look at options for a sustainable system of funding for long-term care. I believe that the commission went about its work in a very consultative manner. It met many people, and it would be fair to say that it received a strong message that improvements in quality and choice of care and fair access to care were at least as important as funding issues. We took that to heart in our own decisions. We know that most older and disabled people prefer to remain independent in their own homes. Our investment in intermediate care and related services, to which I shall return in a moment, is intended to ensure that that happens.
In addition to intermediate care, shortly we shall also publish a national service framework for older people. That will set very clear and consistent standards for the health and social services which older people use. I was most interested in the remarks of the
1214
right reverend Prelate in relation to the spiritual needs of older people. I do not know the answer to the question but I shall certainly find out because I believe that it is particularly apposite. Certainly, I very much respect the contribution which the Church makes, for example, in the National Health Service to the hospital chaplaincy service, and, indeed, to other faiths and religions. I shall wish to pursue that point.
Clearly, our response to the Royal Commission must be seen in the round and not simply in terms of our decision in relation to the specific question of personal care. Of course, the Royal Commission recommended that personal care should be available after assessment according to need and paid for from general taxation. Since we responded to that report, we have made it abundantly clear that we are committed to an unprecedented investment in improving services for older and disabled people. However, we do not believe that making personal care universally free would represent the best use of those resources. That remains the Government's position and it is embraced within the NHS Bill now being considered in another place.
No matter how eloquent the speeches that we have heard tonight, I have not heard any convincing argument as to why this particular element of free personal care should be put on a pedestal as if it were the magic wand which will bring about the cure to so many of the issues we face. As my noble friend Lord Lipsey, the noble Lord, Lord Joffe, and, indeed, the noble Earl, Lord Howe, pointed out, at present personal care is provided on a means-tested basis. Three-quarters of residents of care homes receive some or all their personal care free. Four hundred and fifty thousand older people are in nursing and residential care homes in the UK, and approximately 125,000 of them pay all or some of the home fees.
The Royal Commission assumed that personal care costs other than nursing care costs, whether in residential or nursing homes, were approximately £120 per week. Approximately 600,000 older people receive some care from social services in their own homes. Almost 90 per cent of that care is funded by social services but users are charged on a means-tested basis. Where charges are made, the costs are often subsidised by social services.
In putting together that information, the Royal Commission estimated that free personal care at home, which would not include meals or domestic help, would cost an extra £150 million across the UK. That, together with the cost of personal care in residential care homes, would demand an enormous investment—over £1 billion for England as it arises at present. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Joffe, said, not one extra older or disabled person would have received any extra care or support to remain independent as long as possible; nor would such a system have benefited the least well-off, for whom all or some personal care costs are already paid.
Therefore, it would keep in place essentially the same inadequate services which older people themselves criticise. It would not allow us to develop

1215
the wide range of services which we should like to see in place in order to meet the health and social care needs of older and disabled people. As my noble friend Lord Lipsey said, it could well have perverse incentives. I accept that the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, made a brave attempt at arguing that that would not occur. None the less, it is a substantive point that free personal care could produce the wrong incentives as regards the way that people look towards state support in the future.
As do other noble Lords, I very much appreciate the welcome given by my noble friend Lord Ashley to free nursing care and the removal of the major anomaly which exists at present. Comment has been made tonight about exactly what that means. I can say to noble Lords that, subject to legislation, from October 2001 everyone who needs the care of a registered nurse will receive it, paid by the NHS. That includes registered nurse time spent on providing, planning, delegating, supervising and monitoring care. It will also meet the costs of specialist equipment used by those nurses. We believe that that change will benefit approximately 35,000 people in nursing homes who currently pay for their own care.
I understand the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, about the other costs which may be involved. Nevertheless, the arrangement will mean that people will save up to approximately £5,000 of the annual fees for a year's stay in nursing homes. I believe that that is significant.
I turn to the issue of definitions. The noble Baroness, Lady Barker, talked about a list of goodies that has come out over the past few weeks. I can assure her that there are many more goodies to come in the next few weeks. I do not believe that she was present during our debate yesterday on the National Care Standards Commission. However, I can assure her that the regulations and standards, on which we are keen to consult and receive feedback, will be produced in three batches over the next few months.
I turn to the issue of assessing the registered nurse input to care. I believe that the noble Earl, Lord Howe, is right: yes, issues will arise which will need to be sorted out. However, I do not believe that it is intrinsically impossible to arrive at a consistent definition. From previous debates, noble Lords will know that we are working with the RCN, the Alzheimer's Disease Society and other key stakeholders to ensure that we arrive at an assessment process which will be understandable and consistent.
I also say to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, that I am alive to the issue which he raised in relation to perverse incentives. With regard to consistency, we shall also be informed and helped by the work of the National Care Standards Commission in relation to regulations, minimum standards and the regulatory process. I believe that that will encourage not only a higher standard of provision within nursing homes but also much greater consistency than we have achieved in the past.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Rix, that I always listen with great interest and care to the points that he raises about the needs of people with learning
1216
disabilities. I want to assure him that the assessment tool that we shall develop will ensure that aspects of care which are important for learning disabilities will be taken into account when making assessments for nursing care.
Several noble Lords raised the question of Scotland. I must say—and I acknowledge the joys of devolution in so doing—that the First Minister announced that the Scottish Executive will review the decision not to implement the recommendation in the Sutherland report that personal care should be free. I do not think that a final announcement has yet been made, but we shall all look with great interest to see what Scotland decides to do. Of course, that is a matter for Scotland. When comparing what we do in England with what is done in Scotland, one has to consider the matter in the round and take account of the enormous improvements we shall make in care generally through the national service framework and in intermediate care before obtaining a balanced picture.
The noble Baroness, Lady Barker, was, as ever, robust on this issue. She asked whether people might have to pay for intermediate care. I accept that that is an important matter. Clearly, any service that is provided by the NHS is free. When councils are responsible for services that are similar to those offered through intermediate care, they have some discretion about whether to impose charges. However, the department believes that all intermediate care should be free at the point of use and should be funded from pooled budgets. I also assure her that we shall presently issue a circular that will contain guidance for councils about those matters.
The noble Lord, Lord Joffe, and the noble Earl, Lord Howe, raised the question of carers. It is important to consider that in conjunction with what we are doing for older people and disabled people. During the past few years we have made great strides in giving extra support to carers. The package that the Secretary of State for Social Security announced, involving £5 million extra support for carers over three years, is one such issue. There are many other ways in which we are seeking to support carers, including funding of the Carers National Association, improved information services, the draft long-term charter and Care Direct, as well as the carers' special grant, which has been extended from three to five years. We are determined to increase whatever help we can to carers because the role that they play is crucial.
The noble Lord, Lord Rix, and the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, welcomed the raising of the threshold for capital assets, which is important. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, also welcomed the property disregard for the first three months. I agree with him that that allows valuable time for the person and his or her family to take stock of the situation. It gives them a breathing space to make decisions about financial and other arrangements, and has been warmly welcomed.
In addition, we said that councils will get an extra £85 million over three years from 2001 as a ring-fenced special grant to encourage them to offer deferred payment arrangements whereby councils place a legal

1217
charge on homes that they recoup at a later date. That means that, following admission to permanent care, people will not be forced to sell their houses during their lifetime against their wishes. That is an important development.
My noble friend Lord Ashley asked about short-term loans. It is perhaps worth pointing out that the Royal Commission rejected loan schemes because of what it regarded as a high initial outlay and the fact that local authorities would be involved in funding transaction costs and paying interest. It also said that the arrangement would be complex to establish and administer and that local authorities would be left with a complex burden of assets. As I said, the Government's decision to pay an additional £85 million to local authorities as a ring-fenced grant in relation to deferred payment arrangements is a significant advance.
Time presses on, but, if the House will allow me, I want to mention the developments in intermediate care. They are the crux of this debate. We believe that instead of paying for free personal care for everyone, the £900 million that we will make available for intermediate care will be much more effective because it will be developed and invested in preventive and rehabilitative services, such as community equipment services, as my noble friend Lord Lipsey said. It is aimed at maximising people's independence following a period in hospital or at providing care that re-establishes independence and prevents admission to a care home.
We are already seeing the effects. I have been impressed by some of the developments in intermediate care. By 2004 we estimate that the new investment will help an extra 130,000 people. It is a
1218
question of priorities. But I believe that that is a better place to put that £900 million. In the long term it will produce many more effective results.
I pick up the points made by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, as to what can be done in the long term to encourage people to provide for themselves in old age and also as to what can be done in partnership with the private sector. He will be glad to know that a Treasury-led committee is looking at the whole issue of long-term private/public contribution to care. I am sure that the outcome will prove to be interesting and informative to the wider debate.
In summary, as ever, governments are faced with choices as to priorities. I understand why noble Lords feel that making personal care free would be a good step to take. But at the end of the day the argument the Government put forward is that the additional £900 million will be much more effectively spent in relation to intermediate care. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, does not like that phrase. But it is surely the best way to ensure that as many old and disabled people as possible are rehabilitated and enabled to live in their own homes. That is why we believe we have taken the right decision and that, in the end, the public and those who require our support will be encouraged and helped by the services we now intend to develop.

National Australia Group Europe Bill [H.L.]
Presented and read a first time.
House adjourned at three minutes before nine o'clock.

  Standards of Conduct in the House of Lords
  Standards of Conduct in the House of Lords
  GM Seeds in Conventional Variety Seeds
  GM Seeds in Conventional Variety Seeds
  Environment Council, 18 and 19 December 2000
  Environment Council, 18 and 19 December 2000
  Human Cloning
  Human Cloning
  Substance Misuse Treatment Services
  Substance Misuse Treatment Services
  Water Fluoridation
  Water Fluoridation
  Millennium Dome: Division of Sale Proceeds
  Millennium Dome: Division of Sale Proceeds