Sitting of 21 June 2001

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

Business Question
11.34 am
Mrs. Angela Browning: Will the Leader of the House please give the business for the coming week?
The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Robin Cook): You, Mr. Speaker, informed the House yesterday of the subjects for debate on the Queen's Speech. The business for next week will therefore be:
From Monday 25 June to Wednesday 27 June, continuation and then conclusion of the debate on the Queen's Speech.
THURSDAY 28 JUNE—Motions on programming and deferred Divisions.
FRIDAY 29 JUNE—The House will not be sitting.
The provisional business for the following week will include:
MONDAY 2 JULY—Second Reading of the Homelessness Bill.
I should also like to inform the House that the first business in Westminster Hall, following the conclusion of the Queen's Speech, will be—
THURSDAY 28 JUNE—Debate on Road Safety
Mrs. Browning: I thank the Leader of the House and welcome him to his new position in the House. I also welcome the Parliamentary Secretary. Privy Council Office, the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Twigg), who, I understand, is to ride shotgun for him. I welcome the hon. Gentleman to what I found to be an extremely interesting portfolio, and I hope that he finds it as interesting.
Will the Leader of the House give us more information about the business to be conducted next Thursday 28 June—programming and deferred Divisions? He will know the genesis of the changes to the way in which the House conducts its business—the Select Committee on the Modernisation of the House of Commons, which was chaired by his predecessor. The House will be familiar with my grave reservations about the appropriateness of any Minister chairing a Select Committee. It therefore seems opportune, while such decisions are still being made, to ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider transferring responsibility for modernisation and changing the procedures of the House to the Procedure Committee or, at the very least, if the Modernisation Committee is to be reinstated, for it to be chaired by a Back Bencher, not a member of the Government.
154
I shall not rehearse what I may wish to share with the House next Thursday, but the debate on programming and deferred Divisions has come about because a member of the Government, using a Whip on matters on which there would normally be a free vote for hon. Members on both sides of the House, has insisted that the House change its procedures. Will next Thursday's business be conducted with a free vote for Labour Back Benchers?
We know that on the previous occasion, which was on the day of the American elections, Government Whips were rounding up Members from the bars of the Savoy to get them back to the House so that the Leader of the House could ensure that the democratic rights of Back Benchers were subjugated to the will of the Executive. If that is to be put before us next Thursday, we will oppose it. I seek the right hon. Gentleman's reassurance about that.
I note that the Leader of the House has not informed the House about any possible statements next week. Is the Prime Minister likely to make a statement next week on the Stockholm conference, not just because of the business that was transacted there, but because of the very worrying matters that surrounded the Stockholm conference, which have a read-across to any west European capital that might host—
Mr. David HeathGothenburg.
Mrs. Browning: It is not often that I am grateful to a Liberal Democrat, but I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I apologise—I was referring to the Gothenburg conference. Serious incidents of public disorder occurred there, which could have a read-across to all countries. Surely the Prime Minister should make a statement to the House.
I am pleased to see that after business questions we are to have a statement on foot and mouth from the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor, the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Before the House rose for the general election, it was my clear understanding that the Prime Minister had taken personal responsibility for the management of the foot and mouth crisis. Will the Leader of the House confirm whether that is still the case? If so, when can we expect the Prime Minister, who I assume is still in charge of the matter, to report to the House and answer questions?
Mr. Cook: In a spirit of trying to build what consensus I can from the hon. Lady's questions—[Interruption.] No, I am not. I assure the hon. Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) that on this matter he and I can find full agreement. I welcome the hon. Lady's generous welcome to this post.
On the business for next week, yes, we will renew the programme motion. We will do so because there is a modernising agenda for the House, which must include the right of the House to carry out effective scrutiny and reasonable, modern working methods and hours for Members. There is a large agenda, on which I have been pressed to give a Government lead. Given the pressure to do so, the Leader of the House not taking an interest in the Modernisation Committee would send out a wholly inconsistent message. I hope that it will be set up as soon as possible and, as my predecessor did, I shall play a full

155
part on it. I would be subject to criticism from Labour Members and many others in the House if I did not show such leadership and interest.
I was pressed on whether the vote on Thursday will be a free vote. Yes, there will be a free vote on the Labour Benches. Given the hon. Lady's comments, I would welcome clarification of whether there will be a free vote among members of the official Opposition as well.
As the hon. Lady will be aware, the recent summit in Gothenburg took place while the House was not sitting. That is the only reason why there has been no statement on it. The Prime Minister has been assiduous in making statements on summits when the House has been sitting. Indeed, I personally accompanied him in making each of those statements in the previous Parliament.
There will be a statement on foot and mouth immediately after this business question. We were pressed repeatedly in the previous Parliament for more statements. I would have thought that the hon. Lady would welcome the fact that the new Minister responsible for foot and mouth will be making a statement to the House on the first available day. Surely that should be welcome to all those who demanded such a statement.
Andrew Bennett: May I press the Leader of the House on the question of Select Committees? Will he confirm that it is his intention to get them up and running before the summer recess? Does he realise that, if he is to achieve that, new Standing Orders will need to be brought before the House next week?
Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend is right: we face a very tight timetable to secure meetings of Select Committees before the House rises and to ensure that they have an opportunity to choose Chairs and decide when next to meet. Having said that, I shall endeavour to ensure that we meet that timetable. I share his concern that Select Committees should be set up as soon as possible and that the House should have the ability to use them for effective scrutiny. We will move on that as quickly as we can.
Mr. Paul Tyler: May I add my warm welcome to the Leader of the House in his new post? My right hon. and hon. Friends and I look to him to play what we think can be a historic role in the reform of both Houses of Parliament. Both Houses, and their relations to one another, are looking to him for that initiative.
I endorse the view that has just been expressed about the need for urgent action to set up and begin the work of Select Committees. The Leader of the House will recall a long hiatus following the 1997 election before they got back to work, which we all very much regret. Given that it would seem that everybody in the House—from the outgoing leader of the Conservative party, the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), who referred to the important role that Select Committees play, to the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay), whose comments on the issue in last night's debate were extremely important—is concerned that Select Committees should get back to work as soon as possible, I press the Leader of the House to use his very best endeavours to ensure that before the summer recess. If,
156
as I am sure he will understand, that is delayed until the autumn, they might not be back in action until the end of the year or even the new year.
In connection with the Gothenburg Council, I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to a planted question on today's Order Paper, which will provide only a written answer on the outcome of that Council. Will he use his best endeavours to ensure that the House receives such information by means of a full ministerial statement? We look to him to represent not just the Government but us, to ensure that on such matters the centre of gravity returns from the broadcasting studios to this House.
Mr. Cook: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his welcome and support for my objective of getting Select Committees up and running before the House breaks for the summer recess. I will require the House's co-operation to meet that very tight timetable. At least two separate decisions will be required of this Chamber. As my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Bennett) has pointed out, one will be to change the Standing Orders in order to track changes in Departments; another will be to approve nominations to the Committees. I shall endeavour to enable the House to reach decisions on those matters before the summer. I will need its co-operation to ensure that the decisions are taken and would welcome from the official Opposition the sort of support that we have heard from the hon. Gentleman.
On Gothenburg, a written answer comes to the House and is the property of the House. It is not the property of the wider public until it is made to the House. I can give the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members an assurance that they will find plenty of opportunities to debate Europe before we arrive at the summer recess.
David Winnick: Will the Government give any indication regarding hunting with dogs? The Queen's Speech refers to a free vote, but would not it be right for the Government to provide time for the matter to be finalised at long last? If there is an overwhelming majority in this Parliament for a ban on hunting with dogs, as there was in the previous one, let us finalise the issue once and for all, using Government time and the Parliament Act.
Mr. Cook: Our manifesto, on which we were elected, committed us to providing time for a free vote of Parliament. The Queen's Speech of the very first Session of this Parliament commits us to carrying through that manifesto commitment. I agree with my hon. Friend that it is important for us to resolve the issue, and I believe that many hon. Members, whatever their view on its substance, would like it to be resolved in the current Session.
Sir Brian Mawhinney: I, too, add my congratulations to the Leader of the House on his appointment.
As the right hon. Gentleman considers the week after next, will he bring to the House for decision regulations relating to the pay of hon. Members, office costs allowances and the other related matters that have been pending for a considerable time, on which there is need

157
and urgency? I hope that, unlike his predecessor, he will find an early opportunity to address these matters for the benefit of everyone in the House.
Mr. Cook: I am very sympathetic to the point that the right hon. Gentleman makes. The decisions on pay and the office costs allowance affect not only hon. Members but our staff. In the wake of the election, I know that many hon. Members are facing decisions on staff that are difficult to take with the lack of certainty about the future of the office costs allowance. I hope that we can resolve the matter as soon as possible.
Dr. Phyllis Starkey: I very much welcome the announcement that we will discuss programme motions on Thursday. Many Back Benchers are very dissatisfied about the way in which such motions were discussed in the previous Parliament and want the current Parliament to be more efficient and effective. In that spirit, may I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the first Modernisation Committee report of the Session of 1997–98 and to the many ways in which it suggested that the legislative process could be modernised? Will he revisit the report and consider whether it would be helpful to draw Ministers' attention to ways in which they could progress Government business more effectively?
Mr. Cook: I am aware of the previous reports of the Modernisation Committee. In fairness, I should say that, of the 65 recommendations that the Committee made in the previous Parliament, 56 were carried through by the Government and the House. There is unfinished business and I assure my hon. Friend that we want to revisit it. That is, after all, why I have just committed the Government to setting up the Modernisation Committee and myself to playing a full part in it.
Mr. Peter Viggers: Is the Leader of the House aware that Gosport was not the only constituency in which the local provision of hospital services was the biggest issue on the doorstep? Is he aware also that the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Dr. Taylor), whom I am pleased to see in his place, and I propose to form an all-party group on the local provision of hospital services? Will he provide an early opportunity for the issue to be debated in the House, as it is of overwhelming concern to our constituents?
Mr. Cook: The House will be aware that our priority for early business is to ensure that we get under way with the Bills to which we have committed ourselves in the Queen's Speech and about which the House has heard. I am confident that there will be many opportunities in the current Session for the House to debate health matters. Of course, we are well aware that the health service is not what we would wish it to be. That is why we are in the middle of the largest hospital-building programme that the NHS has ever known, and why we have committed ourselves to a 10-year programme for the NHS that will provide an additional 7,000 beds. If that had been done in the decade before, when the previous Government were in office, we might not now have to make good the damage that was done.
Mr. Mark Fisher: May I add to the weight of congratulations to my right hon. Friend
158
on his appointment and welcome the tone of his response to the various questions on Select Committees? Can the House take that as a sign that my right hon. Friend will set himself the task of being the first Leader of the House for generations to supervise shifting the balance back from Government to the House? Will he provide a positive response to the Liaison Committee report that was produced in the previous Session and the excellent Hansard Society report that was issued this week? It proposes giving greater resources, status and independence from Government to Select Committees.
Mr. Cook: The process of modernisation is necessarily continual; we have therefore already undertaken much modernisation. My hon. Friend undervalues my predecessors' contribution in the previous Parliament, which included introducing Westminster Hall debates, the changes to Thursday sittings and draft legislation. However, there is no ground for complacency, and I assure my hon. Friend that if we are serious about having a modern House that is fit for the 21st century many tasks remain to be done. I shall continue the process of modernisation.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I fully support the views that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) expressed. I congratulate the Leader of the House on his appointment and make a further plea to him to consider the House's method of selecting hon. Members to serve on Select Committees. Will the right hon. Gentleman bear it in mind that it is important that the Selection Committee is not dominated by the usual channels? Will he also reconsider what appears to be his decision to continue with the Modernisation Committee, which he will chair? The Government could be perceived as abusing their position to devise procedures to help them to get their business through rather than enabling the House to scrutinise them and hold them to account. Does not the right hon. Gentleman believe that the Modernisation Committee's functions could be carried out by the Procedure Committee, the impartiality and good sense of which was shown by its excellent report on Mr. Speaker's election?
Mr. Cook: I fully concur that the Procedure Committee produced a good report, but the Modernisation Committee must consider wider issues than procedure. I assure the hon. Gentleman that, as Chairman, I shall not try to railroad or bulldoze the Committee; I am sure that he would not allow me to do that. In the previous Session, the Modernisation Committee produced consensual reports. If I withdrew from the Committee, did not participate fully in and show commitment to its work, that could convey the wrong message.
I am aware of the debate about the appointment of Select Committee members, which was rekindled by the Hansard Society this week. I sense that the House wants the Select Committees to be up and running as quickly as possible. It is therefore not the time to start to rewrite the basis on which members are nominated.
Mr. Eric Forth:Ah!
Mr. Cook: It is self-evident that if the House wants the Select Committees to be up and running in the next four or five weeks, that will have to be done by the means that

159
are available to us. Hon. Members must make a choice about that. I stress to the Opposition that Labour Members who are nominated must be elected by the parliamentary Labour party. That must be included in the timetable for creating Select Committees. If the Opposition also did that, both sides would use a democratic process.
Mr. Martyn Jones: It became a practice in the previous Parliament for the Welsh Affairs Committee to examine the Queen's Speech for matters that are relevant to Assembly Members. As former Chairman of the Committee, may I add my weight to calls for the Committee to be set up as soon as possible so that we can examine some of the matters in the Queen's Speech?
Mr. Cook: I assure my hon. Friend that we wish all departmental Committees to be set up as soon as possible and at the same time, if possible.
Mr. Archy Kirkwood: Of course, the Leader of the House needs the House's co-operation to set up Select Committees before the summer recess, but he rightly identified the first two steps as motions that must be moved by the Deputy Chief Whip. He has to create the Selection Committee, and there is no reason for not tabling that motion next week. He must then table changes to Standing Orders to reconfigure the departmental Select Committee structure to the new architecture in Whitehall. That is easily achieved by making the Select Committee that will cover environment, food policy and agriculture bigger. The others can remain more or less the same. Why does not the Leader of the House take both steps next week?
Mr. Cook: I have to say to the hon. Gentleman that I did not say that I was not going to do those things next week. If he is patient, he will find that progress will be made on these matters. I stressed that we need the co-operation of the Chamber. Those motions are debateable.
Mr. Forth: They are all debateable.
Mr. Cook: The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) has just had that confirmed by an expert on which motions are debateable. That does not fill me with confidence that I would have co-operation in all parts of the House.
Barbara Follett: I congratulate my right hon. Friend and welcome the emphasis that he has placed on modernisation. Will he continue to bear in mind the real need to bring the hours of this place into line with the 21st century rather than the 19th?
Mr. Cook: I am very sympathetic with the point that my hon. Friend makes. I speak as a Member of long standing who was here throughout the 1974 to 1979 Parliament, when our hours were longer than those of any subsequent Parliament. If we want to demonstrate that the House is in the 21st century, we should adopt working methods that other people can relate to rather than stare at in wonderment. It is very important that the House
160
should be able to carry out effective scrutiny, but wasting the time of the House of Commons does not constitute effective scrutiny.
Sir George Young: The Leader of the House, whose appointment I, too, warmly welcome, announced the Second Reading of a Government Bill on, I think, Monday week. May I ask him not automatically to timetable every single Government Bill? We discovered in the previous Parliament that that can lead to an inflexible structure and inadequate discussion of the Bills. Will he explore with good will some alternative, more flexible arrangements?
Mr. Cook: I am absolutely enthusiastic about exploring with good will more flexible arrangements, but good will has to be a two-way street. Without good will on the other side, the remedy of timetabling that enables Back Benchers to take part in debates held at reasonable hours is available to us. If we can find good will on both sides, I am sure that we can find alternative, flexible solutions, but we need that good will on both sides.
Mr. Peter Pike: My right hon. Friend will recognise that the Deregulation and Regulatory Reform Committee has a legislative role to play, and that once that Committee is established it will be able to become involved in legislation. Will he ensure that it is established at the earliest possible date? Will he also give an assurance that—as the timetables for new measures become apparent—no new measure will be laid before the House until that Committee has come into being?
Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to one of the Select Committees that will have a legislative effect and role. There are others, such as the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. In both cases, it would be our wish to see them set up as quickly as possible.
Mr. John Hayes: Perhaps, in welcoming the right hon. Gentleman and the new Parliament, I can ask a non-partisan question that affects a large number of our fellow countrymen and women. The matter has been drawn to my attention in my capacity as co-chairman of what I hope is one of the most respected all-party committees. At which ministerial questions will Members from all parts of the House have the opportunity to ask questions specifically about the needs, interests and welfare of disabled people?
Mr. Cook: I understand that the answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is the Department of Work and Pensions, but I would be happy to give him further guidance before the relevant Question Time comes round.
Mr. Neil Gerrard: Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate in Government time on the current situation in the middle east, and in particular on the problems in the West Bank and Gaza? He will know that, even though those difficulties have been going on for some time—since last autumn—and there is considerable disquiet among many hon. Members, particularly about the actions of the Israeli Government, we have still not had a debate in the House on the subject

161
in all that time, other than a short Adjournment debate in Westminster Hall. I hope that he will agree that this subject deserves a reasonable length of debate in the House.
Mr. Cook: I have absolutely no difficulty in agreeing with my hon. Friend that that is an important and grave matter. It occupied much of my time in the previous Parliament, and I express my continuing distress that the violence continues. The more that the violence continues, the further we move from the negotiating table, which can be the only basis for a secure and permanent peace.
I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the fact that, tomorrow, the House will hold a debate on foreign affairs and defence in which the Foreign Secretary will participate. That will be an appropriate and suitable moment for the House to air those concerns and others on foreign policy.
Mr. Douglas Hogg: Will the right hon. Gentleman arrange an early debate so that the House can discuss whether it is appropriate that hon. Members representing Scottish constituencies can vote on business that affects only England? Does he understand that there is a great sense of unfairness in England about that arrangement, coupled with a sense of unfairness that Scotland is over-represented in this place, and overfunded too? Should not we discuss those matters, and soon?
Mr. Cook: On the question of representation, the right hon. and learned Gentleman will be aware that, before the next election, there will be changes in the representation of Scotland in the House.
Mr. James Gray: That is the first announcement of it.
Mr. Cook: That is the proposal. It is for the Boundary Commission to make proposals, but we anticipate it happening in this Parliament.
On the question of Scottish Members participating in the business of the House, this is a unitary Chamber—one in which all Members have equal rights. If the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) is proposing that that should be changed, he is proposing a fundamental constitutional change that would be warmly welcomed by the Scottish nationalists north of the border.
Tony Wright: I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend's appointment, which comes with the highest expectations about what he will do. He knows that serious reform of the House comes only when the House has a Leader who is committed to that reform. That was true of St. John-Stevas and of Richard Crossman, and we hope that his name will be added to that list.
Modernisation is a weasel word: it means either that the Government get their business more efficiently or that we shift the balance between Parliament and the Executive. Is my right hon. Friend committed to shifting that balance and is he prepared for his tenure as Leader of the House to be judged by that yardstick?
Mr. Cook: I am absolutely committed to finding the right balance, but I say to my hon. Friend that he would
162
be unwise to identify a conflict between the Government securing the measures that they were elected to deliver and the House providing effective scrutiny, both of the text of that legislation and of other acts by the Government. Nothing would bring parliamentary democracy more into disrepute than the Government being unable to deliver on the commitments that they made to their electorate.
Mr. Speaker: Dr. Spink.
Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
Dr. Robert Spink: Encouraged as I am by my colleagues, may I say what a pleasure and a great privilege it is to return to the House to serve the worthy people of Castle Point?.
May I urge the right hon. Gentleman to hold a debate on the euro referendum so that we can expose the tensions and clear up the confusion that is obvious between the Prime Minister and the Chancellor on that issue?
Mr. Cook: I must say that the proposition that there are tensions on that matter between the Prime Minister and the Chancellor seems to rest on an extremely large reading of what the Chancellor said yesterday. That was a faithful restatement of Government policy, and it has been Government policy since 1997.
The House will have opportunities to debate European policy over the next few weeks. We shall be particularly interested to learn what will be the policy of the Opposition after their defeat at the election, and whether their position on the euro will be "never" or whether they will rethink their opposition, having been defeated on their commitment to rule the euro out for only one Parliament.
Lawrie Quinn: I also welcome my right hon. Friend to his post. Following a recent visit to my constituency. he knows the importance of tourism to the rural economy. Will he find time for a debate on the impact of the foot and mouth crisis on the rural economy, particularly tourism, as many people are wondering whether they will survive this season? The Government need to address the future of our rural economies, especially the problems in the tourism industry.
Mr. Cook: I fully understand that foot and mouth has had an impact not only on the agriculture industry, but on the wider rural economy, especially tourism and the leisure industry. Those matters are entirely relevant to the statement of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, which follows. After all, they are matters that the Government will consider carefully. [Interruption.] Obviously the microphone is paying close attention to this exchange. That is why the Government have changed the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food into a Ministry for rural affairs and the environment. We shall take that wider perspective as we address the crisis in the rural economy.
Mr. Roy Beggs: May I, on behalf of the Ulster Unionist group, welcome and congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his appointment? Will he take account

163
of the concern that exists throughout the United Kingdom among service personnel and others who were exposed to chemical treatment before and during the Gulf war, and those who currently suffer from Gulf war syndrome? Will he provide time for that and other related matters to be debated, so that those who served our country and who are now suffering are properly treated?
Mr. Cook: The hon. Gentleman has expressed himself on a matter about which he obviously feels deeply, and which is of deep concern to a number of former service men. In the previous Parliament, there were a number of exchanges on this matter in the House, and I must tell him that we have no plans to hold further debates on it. However, he has available to him all the devices of the House to pursue this matter, which is clearly of real concern to him.
Geraint Davies: May I add my congratulations to my right hon. Friend on his recent appointment? In the light of President Bush's continued resistance to the Kyoto protocol, when might we have another opportunity to discuss the protocol, particularly with a view to establishing a common European stance? Will he give assurances that the environmental impact of transport will continue to be at the forefront of those debates following the departmental restructuring?
Mr. Cook: I reassure my hon. Friend that, in the decisions that the Government take, we shall continue to put great emphasis on the environmental impact of transport, as the Chancellor has already shown in successive Budgets. On the Kyoto principle, my hon. Friend will be aware that, at the Gothenburg summit, all the countries of the European Union agreed that it was important that European Union members should proceed to ratify the Kyoto protocol. It would not be right to proceed with further parliamentary processes before the forthcoming meeting on the Kyoto protocol, which I think will be held in Germany next month. However, I assure my hon. Friend that the Government are fully committed to carrying out our part of the European share of the cut in greenhouse gas emissions, which we were required to do as part of the Kyoto protocol. We have every intention of proceeding and it is very important for the next generation that we do so.
Mr. Edward Leigh: In view of the importance of programme motions to the proper scrutiny of Bills in Standing Committees, does the Leader of the House accept that they should be properly debated and voted on? Does he also accept that it would not fill the House with confidence about his reforming zeal as a new Leader of the House dedicated to improving scrutiny of the Executive if his very first act were to ensure that programme motions were not properly debated and were voted on in deferred Divisions?
Mr. Cook: The hon. Gentleman must be aware that any motion that is tabled can be voted on. He must be aware that the last report of the Modernisation Committee made observations on that matter. The matter is relevant to the motion that we shall consider next Thursday.
164
It would be a rather bad start for the Leader of the House if he began by ignoring the Modernisation Committee's recommendations.
Mr. David Chaytor: May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to early-day motion 23 on national missile defence, which has the support of more than 170 Members?
[That this House expresses concern at President Bush's intention to move beyond the constraints of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in developing missile defence; and endorses the unanimous conclusions of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, which recommended that the Government voice the grave doubts about NMD in the UK, questioned whether US plans to deploy NMD represent an appropriate response to the proliferation problems faced by the international community and recommended that the Government encourage the USA to explore all ways of reducing the threat it perceives..]
Does my right hon Friend agree that, in the past, there has been a parliamentary tradition whereby major changes in defence policy have not always received the fullest parliamentary scrutiny? In the spirit of a modernising agenda designed to give greater powers of scrutiny to the House, will he find time in the very near future to arrange a debate in Government time on President Bush's proposals for national missile defence, particularly its implications for the United Kingdom's defence and foreign policy?
Mr. Cook: I have read the early-day motion. The crucial issue is the extent to which the United States can find agreement with Russia. We have urged on Washington the importance both of consulting closely with close allies and of entering into dialogue with Russia to find a strategic framework within which America can meet its real and strongly perceived perceptions of the threat to it from rogue states. It would be entirely proper for any of the Members who signed the early-day motion to raise their concerns in the debate on foreign affairs and defence to be held tomorrow.
Mr. Forth: I congratulate the Leader of the House on his recent promotion. As a Member of the House with long and distinguished service and a parliamentarian of great repute, will he give us his personal guarantee that he will always put first the interests of the House as a whole, and that he will ensure that in no way will the traditional rights of opposition and scrutiny be reduced in the interests of the Government getting their business more easily, more speedily or without proper scrutiny and accountability?
Mr. Cook: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his congratulations. One of the greatest delights of my new post is that I shall be able to see even more of him.
I hope that in my period in office I shall be able to provide for more effective scrutiny of Government legislation and actions by all Members of the House, whether on the Opposition or on the Government side. It is an important principle of parliamentary democracy that Governments deliver the programme on which they were elected, so I do not intend to do anything that will

165
undermine the public's faith in the proposition that what they voted for is what they get from the Government whom they elected.
Mr. Simon Thomas: In welcoming the right hon. Gentleman to his new post, may I remind him of the agonising debate that we had in the last Parliament on therapeutic cloning? After long debate and much thought, many Members on both sides of the House decided that we would vote in favour of therapeutic cloning on the basis that we would have an early Bill to outlaw human cloning for other purposes. That legislation was not mentioned in the Queen's Speech. Will we have an early debate on this matter, and will we have an opportunity to consider legislation on human cloning as it is a grey area that has not yet been outlawed in this country, and all Members agree that it has huge ethical implications?
Mr. Cook: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising this complex issue, which provokes strong feeling. He will be aware that, because of its complexity, this will not be an easy matter on which to legislate. The commitments that we have given are for a full Parliament and not just for the first year. I believe that this is an example of when draft legislation may be of value in enabling those interested in the subject to comment before the House legislates, but we shall have to explore that as the Parliament proceeds.
Dr. Evan Harris: We understand that the Government have a busy programme, but surely top priority should be given to an issue that was considered urgent and was promised in the 1997 manifesto but has not yet been delivered. Will the right hon. Gentleman provide the House with an early statement about why the Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Bill, which would help to tackle a problem that kills 120,000 people each year and for which the health service needs new recruits, is not mentioned in the Government's programme for the first year, given that it was first promised in 1997? Public health physicians up and down the country are amazed that the Government's priorities are seriously in danger a affecting the health of the nation.
Mr. Cook: It was a disappointment to the Government that we were not successful in securing the Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Bill at the end of the previous Session. As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, there was some controversy over the proposals and there was not unanimous support for the Bill. As the Prime Minister has said, it is not the position that the only Bills to be put before the House are those named in the Queen's Speech. If time permits, such legislation will be a high priority for us, and we will try to accommodate it in the time available. It will certainly be a high priority for a future Session of this Parliament.
I should point out to the hon. Gentleman that the Department of Health has two Bills in this Session, and the health of the nation is well catered for in the priorities set out in the Queen's Speech.

Foot and Mouth
12.14 pm
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Margaret Beckett): With permission, I should like to make a statement on the foot and mouth outbreak. I want to take this, the earliest possible opportunity, to update the House on developments since my right hon. Friend the then Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food made his statement on Thursday 3 May, and to set out the measures that the Government continue to take.
As of midday today, there had been a total of 1,771 confirmed cases of foot and mouth disease in the United Kingdom, including four in Northern Ireland. Yesterday there was only one case. Since my right hon. Friend addressed the House some seven weeks ago, there have been an average of between four and five cases a day. That should be compared with the highest level of more than 40 cases a day at the end of March.
The number of animals slaughtered for disease control purposes has now reached 3.4 million, an increase of 1 million since 3 May. The percentages for each species remain roughly the same: about 80 per cent. are sheep, 16 per cent. cattle and 4 per cent. pigs. A further 1.1 million animals have been slaughtered under the livestock welfare disposal scheme. The total number of animals slaughtered under both headings is about 4.5 million so far, out of a total United Kingdom livestock population of about 55 million.
Let me put that figure in context. Although by anyone's standards a massive number of animals have had to be slaughtered, it is a substantially smaller number than the number that we slaughter for consumption in an average week—some half a million cattle, sheep and pigs.
My right hon. Friend warned the House on 3 May that the epidemiological advice was that cases would continue to occur for some time yet. Sadly, that remains the case. He also warned that we expected that the outbreak would have a long tail, that there would be further outbreaks in some parts of the country, and that the number of cases per day would fluctuate. That remains the position today.
The objective also remains to eradicate the disease as quickly as we can. Let me make it perfectly clear that although we cannot put a definitive time scale on the achievement of that goal, no one is suggesting that it will be in the next few days or weeks. It is therefore hugely important that no one relaxes their guard. Certainly all the resources, both civil and military, that we as a Government need to bear down on the disease will be deployed where they are needed for as long as they are needed.
More than 900 vets are still actively working on the outbreak, including about 80 from abroad. As the number of daily cases has declined, it has been possible to reduce the number of military personnel now working on the ground to about 250, mainly in the north of England. That reduction can, of course, be speedily reversed if the need should arise. Indeed, our immediate response to the outbreak in the Settle area of north Yorkshire showed that we can react rapidly when the situation requires it. And, of course, hundreds of administrative staff remain in place in control centres throughout the country.
My right hon. Friend was able to say on 3 May that there were no backlogs of animals awaiting disposal anywhere in Great Britain. I am pleased to say that we

167
have maintained that position ever since, and it remains the case today. A new system, co-ordinated in the headquarters in Page street, London, ensures that carcases are picked up from farms promptly after slaughter, and transported to their final destination without further delay.
Of course, it is much easier to achieve rapid turnaround when there are just four or five cases per day than when there are 30 or 40. Nevertheless, the task of ensuring that many thousands of carcases are collected and disposed of each day is itself a major logistical exercise. Seven or eight cases can involve 30 or 40 farms, including the contiguous premises, and therefore up to 20,000 carcases.
Protection of the environment and human health are our priority for all disposal options. Rendering is the best way of disposing of carcases, and will always be our first choice, but rendering capacity is finite and can quickly become overstretched, at least in the short term, if on any given day the number of cases rises. The Department of Health has advised that the greatest public health hazard would be leaving carcases out in the open, especially in warm weather, so other means of disposal may still need to be called upon from time to time.
If other options are exhausted, we shall on occasion still have to turn to licensed landfills and mass burial sites. I understand the strength of local feelings about burial sites, and I assure the House that a decision to use such a site, even for just one day or for a few lorry loads, is not taken lightly. However, as has been said many times, there are no easy options for disposal, and if the circumstances arise we must be prepared to utilise all the national assets that we have, including burial sites.
Those are the steps taken to deal effectively with the outbreak of the disease. Even more important, however, is preventing further spread of the disease. I cannot emphasise too strongly the continuing importance of high standards of biosecurity—practical precautionary measures to prevent further spread of the disease—on and around farms. We are taking every opportunity to drive home that message, using interviews in the national and local media and advertisements in the local and the farming press.
We have also produced a video demonstrating a practical approach to biosecurity. That will shortly be made available to all livestock farmers and others in the industry, accompanied by a leaflet and letter from Jim Scudamore, the chief veterinary officer. It is essential to drive the message home. I appeal to all right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House who have expressed continued concern and interest in the concerns of their constituents to play their part in conveying that message to those constituents.
As the House is aware, the outbreak continues in a number of areas of the country, but fortunately other regions have had no cases at all, or have had no further cases for a long time and are looking forward to a return to normality. We are doing everything we can to facilitate that, subject, naturally, to the overriding priority not to put the eradication of the disease at risk.
Thirty-seven infected areas have now had that designation lifted. Those are areas where not only have there been no new cases for more than 30 days, but thorough veterinary and serological testing has taken
168
place. Some 43,000 farms have benefited from the lifting of restrictions; that is about a third of the farms that have ever been restricted.
As I have said. wherever there is a remaining disease problem, we will put all our efforts into eradicating it. At the same time, I am conscious of the call from the farming industry and the wider rural community for some of the tighter movement restrictions to be relaxed. As ever, there is a balance to be achieved between continuing to bear down on the disease—movement restrictions are an essential part of our armoury for control—and allowing reasonably normal business to take place where the risk of spreading the disease is very low. The restrictions applied must be kept proportionate to the risk.
Therefore, I can announce two significant changes to the rules on the movement of livestock. The industry has been pressing for some time for a relaxation of the licence restrictions to enable more normal trade to take place. Clearly, our first priority is to ensure that nothing is done that puts the eradication of the disease at risk, but the veterinary advice is that certain changes can be made, provided that strict criteria are applied and the animals are otherwise eligible to be moved under existing foot and mouth disease rules.
First, as from tomorrow, Friday 22 June, livestock—cattle, sheep and pigs—from within infected areas will be permitted to move, under licence, for slaughter in abattoirs outside the infected area. both for human consumption and under the livestock welfare disposal scheme. Secondly, also from tomorrow, cattle and pigs from outside infected areas will be permitted to move, under licence, into provisionally free areas on welfare grounds. At the same time, welfare movements of cattle and pigs from one provisionally free area to another will be permitted. The veterinary advice is that a similar easing of welfare movements for sheep would present too high a risk in the current situation.
Relaxation of movement restrictions where reasonable is important for our farming industry, but foot and mouth disease has had a devastating impact on the wider rural economy. As part of our strategy for wider rural recovery, we want footpaths and other rights of way to be reopened wherever that is safe, Considerable progress has been made in recent weeks, with more than half of all paths now open. That reflects real effort and good will on the part of many local authorities, farmers and walkers. However, some local authorities have kept paths shut when it is quite difficult to see that that is justified; the risks have been assessed as very slight. What is also unhelpful is that, even where most paths are open, people are often still confused about which paths are open and which are shut.
I have asked my right hon. Friend the Minister for Rural Affairs to examine as a matter of urgency whether we can revoke the remaining blanket closures of paths in the near future. We would keep in place local authority powers to close paths selectively where necessary—mainly within 3 km of infected premises—and we will listen to representations from local authorities and others who may wish to retain blanket closures in particular areas affected by disease. We recognise that that may be the right response in areas where there is or has been a high concentration of disease, and implementing path-by-path closures would be difficult.

169
Revoking remaining blanket closures will both increase the number of paths open and, as is equally important, make much clearer which paths are open and which are closed. It will mean that by the summer holidays most of the countryside will be well and truly open, and seen to be open, for visitors and for business.
We are also continuing to take action to help rural businesses, particularly in the worst affected areas, to cope with the impact of foot and mouth. In the past three months, the Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise have deferred £71 million of tax without interest charges for severely affected businesses. Local authorities have granted or are considering 3,500 applications for hardship rate relief, in addition to deferment of rates bills and applications for revaluation related to foot and mouth impacts.
Furthermore, we have provided additional funding of £39 million for the business recovery fund run by the regional development agencies to add to the resources that they had already been allocated and have themselves reprioritised for such use. In addition to business support, and funding for local and regional promotion, more than 200 businesses have had offers of grant from the fund, and we expect all RDAs to have the fund fully operational with their business links partners by the end of this month.
The disease has been a terrible blow to farmers and to the wider rural community, and for some, recovery will still seem a distant dream. Nevertheless, work to help farmers emerge from the crisis has begun, and it is of course linked to the Government's aims to create sustainable and diverse farming and food industries and to promote thriving rural economies, and communities.
In the short term, we have already paid out about £790 million in compensation for slaughtered animals in addition to the £156 million announced for agrimonetary compensation and an estimated total of £230 million under the livestock welfare disposal scheme. Looking to the longer term, members of the rural task force and other stakeholders are already engaged in discussions with my Department and my ministerial colleagues on how best to deliver a sustainable and thriving countryside.
It is clear that we must learn the lessons from the outbreak. Although everyone was trying to do his or her best, it is in the nature of things that some errors are likely to have been made. What is important is not only to identify what we could and should do better next time, but to highlight the many things that went well, and that we should do again if the same or a similar situation should arise.
We also need to examine issues such as the possible future shape of the disease control regime and the changes that might be necessary at EU as well as at national level. Again, a review is planned for the autumn, and we are keen to play an active part in that. I discussed all those points with EU colleagues at this week's Agriculture Council, where other member states continued to be not only appreciative of our efforts but—as my right hon. Friend the previous Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food reported to the House—very,supportive and helpful to our country and our Government in dealing with the outbreak.
My Department and I are determined to bring the outbreak to an end. I have been tremendously impressed by the commitment of all those working on foot and mouth whom I have met in my short time in office,
170
including veterinarians, soldiers and administrative and technical staff, who in many parts of the country are still working very long hours, seven days a week. I am most grateful to those who have contributed to the team effort, not least to our own former ministerial team, and I pay tribute to them all. I myself hope to visit one of the worst affected areas in the north of England soon.
In closing, I ask for us all, on both sides of the House, to continue to work together as we move nearer to our ultimate goal of the complete eradication of the disease from the United Kingdom and a return to normality in farming and rural communities.
Mr. Tim Yeo: I congratulate the Secretary of State on her appointment. I know that she brings to the job wide experience of Government, and also knowledge of the countryside, both at home and abroad, acquired partly at least from her caravanning holidays. I look forward to debating with her the whole range of the responsibilities of her enlarged Department in the coming weeks, starting on Tuesday next. I hope that she appreciates the depth and urgency of the crisis in our countryside. Whatever the merits or otherwise of restructuring in Whitehall, what the countryside, farming, tourism and the whole rural economy need is not a new Department but a new Government policy.
I welcome the fact that the Secretary of State has taken this first available opportunity to make a statement on the foot and mouth epidemic, although I have to say in passing that a copy of her statement reached me only five minutes before she started speaking. I also warmly welcome the progress that she has announced on relaxing the restrictions on livestock movements from infected areas. Again, I offer the Opposition's full support for those and any further measures that are needed both to eradicate the disease and to help the industries that have been damaged.
I hope that the Secretary of State will not fall into her predecessor's habit of claiming regularly that the epidemic is under control when plainly it is not, or make claims like those made by the Prime Minister just before the general election, when he said that the Government were on the home straight in dealing with the disease, when plainly they were not.
I hope that the Secretary of State will visit not only one but many of the worst affected areas—in the Yorkshire dales, Lancashire, Cumbria, Devon and Somerset—where she will find that farmers paint a very different picture from that which has regularly been painted by Ministers. For example, in Yorkshire, after the Prime Minister's claim at the beginning of May, the disease spread into previously uninfected areas at an alarming rate. Does the right hon. Lady realise that the damage caused by the disease is not confined to the countryside? For example, in April, the number of visitors to Britain, including those intending to come to urban areas, was down by a quarter.
I am surprised, and very disappointed, that the Secretary of State did not refer to the public inquiry that is clearly needed. The scale of the epidemic makes it essential that a full public inquiry be held to establish how the disease reached Britain and why the Government reacted so slowly—and often incompetently—in those crucial early weeks, and to advise on an effective prevention strategy to minimise the risk of another similar national disaster.

171
Does the Secretary of State recognise that only a full public inquiry will be acceptable, that former Ministers responsible for handling the epidemic—all of whom seem to have been conveniently shuffled away or retired—must answer in public for their actions, and that the Prime Minister, who said at the end of March that he was taking personal charge of the crisis, must also give evidence? Is the Prime Minister still in personal charge of the crisis? The Leader of the House refused to answer that question earlier.
Does the Secretary of State agree that a full public inquiry need not take anything like as long or cost as much as, for example, the BSE inquiry, because the science of foot and mouth is already better understood and the period of events to be investigated is very much shorter?
Has there been any change in the basis on which the figures for foot and mouth cases are calculated? In advance of a public inquiry, will the Secretary of State arrange for a qualified statistician to undertake an independent audit of the figures produced by the old Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food throughout the period of the epidemic?
I note the Secretary of State's comments on relaxing some of the footpath restrictions. Does she accept that footpaths in or near infected areas should be opened only after a proper and rigorous local assessment of the risks, in consultation with all the interested parties?
Does the right hon. Lady accept that the proposal for a 20-day ban on the movement of livestock, announced as one of her predecessor's knee-jerk responses in April, is unworkable in practice and should be withdrawn and completely rethought?
The Secretary of State did not refer specifically to vaccination. Will she start talks with other European Union member states on whether the EU-wide policy should now be fundamentally reviewed? Do the Government plan to carry out serological testing, and if so, will the results be published, and what will be done with the animals that test positive? Does she recognise that compensation is needed not only for farmers whose animals have been slaughtered but for many others who have suffered unrecoverable losses as a direct result of the epidemic?
When will the Government introduce a full recovery plan for the livestock industry, the rest of the rural economy, tourism and other countryside businesses, including the equestrian sector? How many businesses have benefited so far from the measures announced by the rural task force and, in the absence of the Minister for the Environment this morning, will the Secretary of State tell us who is now chairing the rural task force?
Do the Government accept that the epidemic should never have reached its present scale, and that if prompt effective action had been taken at the outset, as I suggested in the House and as inquiries into the previous outbreak made clear, far fewer animals would have died, far fewer family businesses would have been destroyed, far less damage to farming and the rural economy would have occurred, and hundreds of millions of pounds of taxpayers' money would have been saved? The crisis has inflicted hideous suffering and damage on human beings,
172
animals, the countryside and the economy. It has not been handled well and has still not been resolved; it needs the Government's most urgent and continuing attention.
Margaret Beckett: I do not know whether it is gratifying that the hon. Gentleman has emerged from the rigours of the election campaign with his attitudes and his amour propre undamaged by contact with reality. He asked a string of questions and made a string of comments; I shall endeavour to respond to most of his questions.
The hon. Gentleman asked if there had been any change to the basis on which figures are calculated; the answer is no. He asked whether paths would be reopened only after local consultation. I shall come back to that issue in a second. I apologise for the fact that he received a copy of the statement late; he will not receive a statement so late again, but he will appreciate that on a day when there are no ordinary parliamentary questions, there is less time than usual to clarify things and get a copy to him. In view of what he said about accurate statistics, I am sure that he also appreciates that we wanted to make the latest possible figures available to the House.
As I said, the hon. Gentleman asked about reopening footpaths. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Rural Affairs will announce today the date on which we propose that the blanket closures should be lifted. In the interim, as I made plain in the statement, it will be possible for local authorities to make representations if, for some reason, they feel that blanket closure is necessary in their areas. Of course, it will also be possible for local authorities to continue to exercise the range of powers that they previously enjoyed. I expect that decisions will be taken with due sensitivity to local situations.
The hon. Gentleman asked about instigating talks with the European Union on vaccination policy. Of course, that remains under consideration, and I have little doubt that in the aftermath of the outbreak, there is bound to be further discussion of all those issues. He asked whether we planned to carry out serological testing. I was not quite sure what point he was making, as the Government are already carrying out extensive serological testing. I cannot recall offhand whether the House has previously been made aware of the fact that when the outbreak began, we inherited a capacity to test some 400 serological samples. I have rather lost track of the latest figures, as they are rising rapidly, but we now have the capacity to test between 60,000 and 70,000 samples. We are continuing to increase that capacity because we perceive the need to carry out thorough and extensive testing.
The hon. Gentleman again asked for compensation for, as far as I could make out, any unrecovered losses by anybody in any circumstances. He will know that, sadly, no Government have felt able to make such a commitment—and this one is no exception. We shall certainly introduce a recovery plan, but I cannot give a date for that at present. I cannot add to what I said in the statement about the number of businesses that are benefiting from the resources that have been made available because, obviously, that is being handled by regional development agencies. The rural task force is chaired by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Rural Affairs, which is why he is here now.

173
I think that I have now covered most of the questions that the hon. Gentleman asked. However, he also made a number of observations. He said that the depth and urgency of the crisis was evident; I do not dissent from that at all. He said that reshuffles in Whitehall were irrelevant; of course. the changes that have been and continue to be made have not disrupted the handling of the outbreak, which is still a very high priority indeed for my Department.
Not for the first time, the hon. Gentleman accused my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East and Wallsend (Mr. Brown), who is now the Minister for Work, of making certain statements—but he will find that those statements were not wholly accurately reported. The hon. Gentleman also mentioned the need for a new policy, criticised the Government for saying that we were on the home straight, and made his usual call for a full public inquiry. There is no point in his continuing to pretend that the Government are not committed to having an inquiry when the outbreak is over. We have repeatedly made it plain that we have every intention of having an inquiry—[HON. MEMBERS: "When?"] When the outbreak is over. If hon. Members listen to the "Today" programme. as I am sure they do assiduously, they will have heard the president of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons giving the interviewer what were, for the hon. Gentleman, all the wrong answers, by saying that the Government were not handling the issue badly and that we should not have the inquiry until the outbreak is over. That remains the Government's view.
There will be an inquiry, but the farming industry and rural communities most want to see an inquiry that is carried out fully and effectively, and uncovers the answers as expeditiously as possible and at as low a cost as possible. It is hard to listen to Opposition Members go on about how disgusting it is that the Government are not pledged to hold a full public inquiry when the Conservatives resisted right to the end of their term in office an inquiry into the BSE outbreak.
The hon. Gentleman said that an inquiry need not take long or cost much, but he continued this morning his practice—which I also observed from my former position on the Front Bench—throughout the outbreak. He and his colleagues spend all their time trying to think of something they can ask the Government to do that they will refuse to do. If he spent more of his time assisting the Government in getting across the messages about what matters in the countryside—to continue to bear down on the disease and to take the precautions that will reduce its spread—he would gain more respect, in the House and outside.
Joyce Quin: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement. As a former Minister. I strongly support the creation of her Department and the fact that she will examine the revival of the rural economy as a whole, and the important role that agriculture will play in that. I also welcome the fact that there will be an inquiry and I look forward to defending many aspects of the Government's record in handling the outbreak.
Once again, the Conservative spokesman seems to be unwilling to be distracted by mere facts. Instead of being in advance of the Government, he was very much behind us in several of the measures that we took. Comparisons
174
are often made with 1967, but it is the huge differences that strike me. In particular, the farmer at the source of the outbreak in 1967 reported the disease within two days, but in this case it was not reported at all.
I hope that the maximum amount of information will be available to farmers engaged in restocking, and that the Department will pull out all the stops to work with the agricultural sector to provide for its long-term future.
Margaret Beckett: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for her comments, and I take the opportunity to pay tribute to her for the tremendous amount of work that she did in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I regret that she has chosen to devote more of her time to the interests of her constituents, and not to play a part in the Department in the future. I also acknowledge the real justice of many of her strictures about the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo). I also agree with my right hon. Friend that the differences between now and the 1967 outbreak are stark, and that the delay in reporting is the most significant difference—as she rightly identified. I have been very impressed with the mechanisms that I have found in the Department for consultation with the wider farming and rural community. We will continue to use those mechanisms, not least when discussing matters such as restocking and how to spread information about it. Again, I am grateful to her for her remarks in that respect.
Mr. Colin Breed: I welcome the Secretary of State to her new post, and thank her for her statement. However, will she clarify the nature of the public inquiry that she announced? Will it be as full, comprehensive and independent as the BSE inquiry under Lord Phillips, or will it be delayed, incomplete and shoved under the carpet'? We need a report that shows precisely how the Government handled the foot and mouth crisis.
The crisis has cost about £1 billion, so is it not clear that there needs to be more investment in the veterinary service, as it is vets who will advise the Government? Also, should not more advice be sought from independent scientific sources, so that the real nature of animal diseases can be identified more clearly? That would help us to cope better with any future outbreak.
Does the right hon. Lady agree that the new Department should do more than merely respond to the rural task force? It should develop strategies and policies that can be debated early in this Parliament. thus ensuring that the Department gets on top of the integration of rural policy and the policies of the former Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. In that way, it would be evident that a new direction and culture had been adopted.
Finally, will the Secretary of State confirm that there will be no delay in opening up Dartmoor? That is very important, given the start of the summer tourist season. We have heard that Dartmoor may not be fully reopened. I hope that that is not correct, but I should be grateful if she could investigate the matter urgently. As she will be aware, in the far south-west the summer season and the opening up of Dartmoor are extremely important.
Margaret Beckett: First, I cannot add anything to what has been said from this Dispatch Box many times already about the inquiry into the foot and mouth outbreak.

175
I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government have no intention of not having an inquiry. We shall require the inquiry to be complete, not least because it will nail comprehensively much of the nonsense and many of the myths that have been spread, both in the House and outside.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the need for further investment to strengthen the veterinary service, and we shall, of course, consider such matters in the future. Speaking from memory, I think that about 10 times as many vets have been working on the outbreak than are normally available full time. That provision is temporary, and it is to be hoped that so many vets will not be needed in the ordinary course of events. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that we should strengthen access to scientific advice, but I do not link that requirement to our knowledge of the disease. In many ways, we know a great deal about the disease; the question is how we handle outbreaks such as we have experienced. I certainly share his wish for a new direction and culture when it comes to discussing the rural community's concerns and affairs more widely and in the context of sustainable development.
The hon. Gentleman asked about Dartmoor. As I said in my statement, we shall want as much ground as possible to be opened up, subject to the balance of proper control of the disease. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Rural Affairs will make some inquiries about the position in Dartmoor, and will make contact with the hon. Gentleman if he has something useful to convey.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be aware that many small farmers who have lost herds are in very real financial difficulty. Will she give urgent consideration to the payment of compensation, to ensure that people do not wait an unnecessarily long time? Will she also look at the subject of artificial insemination, which is causing considerable difficulty for firms in my constituency? They have been directly affected, but feel that the veterinary decision that has been taken has not been followed up by a clear policy statement from the Department. Will she look at those matters very urgently?
Margaret Beckett: I certainly undertake to do so. Again, I will contact my hon. Friend if I have something to report
Mr. David Curry: The Secretary of State will understand the sense of embattlement, claustrophobia, foreboding, fear and anger in my constituency and in neighbouring constituencies in Lancashire, where there have been 80 cases of foot and mouth disease since the general election was announced. In addition, 326 farms have been culled out, and nearly 250,000 animals slaughtered. Will she recognise that the first service that she can do is to acknowledge how serious the crisis is locally? However the figures look nationally, to people on the ground the crisis remains urgent, terrible and present. Will she further realise that, although most people think that the cull has been handled sensitively and efficiently, there is a terrible problem with the cleaning-up operation because of the enormous bottlenecks, and that
176
attention needs to be focused on cleaning, cleansing and disinfecting and on ultimately getting people back into business and addressing the delays?
The Secretary of State will also recognise that business in my constituency, which has been effectively closed down since the verb first outbreaks in Hawes and Lancashire—the present crisis has only multiplied the difficulties—is now in serious difficulty, faces a summer of loss and a potential winter of bankruptcy. Will she therefore announce that the rate relief scheme, which is due to finish at the end of the month, will be renewed; and that Government aid, which for Yorkshire and Humberside is only £2.5 million and was announced before my constituency had any cases, will be renewed and adjusted in proportion to an outbreak that in Craven at least is beginning to look as if it will be of Cumbrian proportions? Does she realise that Government funding via the Countryside Agency to match voluntary contributions finishes at the end of the month, before we shall have a chance to benefit?
Will the Secretary of State look at the possibility of attracting more tourists to the area, bearing it in mind that 90 per cent. of the tourists to the Yorkshire Dales are national not international, and that of those, 80 per cent. are regional? Rather than attract Americans back, if we could get tourists back from Bradford, Leeds and Manchester, it would do us a service. Will she deal with those matters and recognise how sensitive and raw-edged people's feelings are?
Margaret Beckett: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the sensitive way in which he has recognised and spoken of the range of issues. Of course I recognise how badly his constituents feel. Although I do not represent a farming constituency, when I lived in Lincolnshire some 10 years after the previous outbreak I was well aware of the remaining grief and deep feelings of mourning of those who experienced the 1967 outbreak. I am under no illusions at all about how deep the grief will have gone within his community and the many others that have been affected. I do indeed recognise those concerns.
I recognise the validity of the right hon. Gentleman's other points about the potential for bottlenecks in the cleaning-up process, the range of businesses affected and the fact that it was some time ago that the dates for the support schemes were first set. The Government will have to consider all those issues. I cannot give him any information today, but I undertake consider the points that he raised, not least his final, extremely pertinent point about domestic tourism. He will appreciate that that is part of the reason for the thrust of the announcement that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Rural Affairs will make later today. We are seeking to get the message across. I have heard some anecdotal evidence of how, in various areas as restrictions have been lifted, the recovery of tourism and other businesses has been speedier than people had feared and that people have begun to recover losses more speedily than had been feared. It is essential that we do everything that we can to minimise that damage and I assure the right hon. Gentleman that we shall do so
Mr. Gordon Prentice: My constituency is next door to Skipton and Ripon, and is now gripped by the foot and mouth outbreak. The right hon. Member for

177
Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) talked about the culling being handled sensitively. Many of my constituents have contacted me about the brutal way in which animals have been culled, mentioning in particular the so-called Liverpool team. I invite the Secretary of State to comment on why, four months into the crisis we still read horror stories about killings that have gone wrong.
There is one other practical point. Four and a half months into the crisis, why cannot we have proper disinfectant baths on our country roads? So many people say to me, "How in God's name is it possible for foot and mouth to spread like wildfire, when everyone has been told of the importance of biosecurity measures?" My right hon. Friend mentioned those in her statement.
Finally, my right hon. Friend said that she would be visiting the worst affected areas in northern England. I take it that she will visit the Ribble Valley, Skipton and Ripon, and my constituency
Margaret Beckett: May I say to my hon. Friend, with proper respect, that I hope that this does not become a competition to be the worst affected area as a means of ensuring that Ministers visit a particular part of the country? I understand the concerns that have been expressed. I have not heard all the anecdotal evidence to which he refers, but of course I am aware that there have been occasions when distress has been caused as a result of the culling operation.
With regard to my hon. Friend's query about disinfectant baths, I hope that the House is aware that the key means by which the disease is spread is the movement of vehicles and of people, and in particular, close contact with animals. He is right that everyone should be mindful of that and of the precautions that need to be taken. I suggest that we all, as politicians, continue to urge those precautions on our constituents to bring about a continued diminution in the already substantially reduced number of affected areas
Mr. Nigel Evans:is The impact of foot and mouth on the Ribble Valley has been enormous. The Minister has spoken of the national impact, but in the villages that have been directly affected, such as West Bradford, Gisburn, Paythorne, Sawley, Rimington, Downham and other areas near Clitheroe, the impact has been devastating and total. Farmers still speak about the 1967 outbreak and remember it as though it occurred yesterday.
The present outbreak has affected not just those directly involved in farming, but the wider community. There is a sense of grieving for the communities throughout my area and, I am sure, in neighbouring areas. Will the Secretary of State ensure that the culling operation is carried out as humanely as possible? Stories have been spread about the inhumane culling of animals. We heard about that before and thought that it had been corrected. It must not be allowed to continue.
With regard to the welfare package and the compensation that has been made available to farmers whether or not they have been directly affected by foot and mouth, will the Secretary of State ensure that it gets through as quickly as possible? I understand that some farmers have been waiting 10 to 12 weeks for money, which cannot be allowed.
We have heard stories that the vehicles used to transport carcases are not properly disinfected, and that stops are made for tea and coffee on the way to the areas
178
where the carcases are to be laid. That must not be allowed. Transportation must be direct from the farms to the pits. The Secretary of State said that she would visit the north of England. As she knows, in Gisburn I have the Army operations depot, and the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has a base there. Will she come and see the operation first-hand, speak with those who are directly affected by the outbreak and listen to the ideas and practical suggestions of farmers and those in associated industries to ameliorate the position in the short term? Will she then produce practical suggestions for the long-term recovery of farming in our area?
Mr. Speaker: Order. Before the Secretary of State replies, I must appeal for short questions. I want to call as many hon. Members as possible, and I cannot do so under these circumstances.
Margaret Beckett: I shall respond briefly. I understand the comments of the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) about the feelings and concerns of his constituents. He made a number of observations about people waiting for compensation, and suggestions for dealing with problems in the handling of transport. It would be very helpful to my Department if people who have detailed evidence, whether of delays in payment or, indeed, of incidents of the kind to which he referred, made it available. He will know that one such anecdote repeated 10 times gives the impression of 10 such events. We shall of course look at any concerns that are expressed, but evidence would help.
Mr. David Kidney: When the Government announced their enhanced support for the business rate relief scheme for some councils, Stafford borough was not one of them. Given my right hon. Friend's responsibility for all rural businesses, will she take an early opportunity to consider representations received not just from Stafford but from several other councils about why they believe that businesses affected in their areas deserve that enhanced Government support?
Margaret Beckett: I undertake to my hon. Friend that we shall look again at that case. He will know that those issues have been raised. We shall of course keep them under consideration.
Mr. Robert Key: What steps have the Government taken to strengthen the inspection at ports of entry into this country of meat that has been subject in the past only to random checking? What steps have they taken to review the labelling of imported meat products that are subsequently sold to consumers in this country?
Margaret Beckett: Steps have certainly been taken. I do not have the details about my person, but I know that more advice has been given to the inspectorates at the ports that there should be more stringent enforcement and that, again, the issues are kept continually under review. The hon. Gentleman will know that we continue to consider issues such as labelling to see what can be done to ensure that people are given accurate information. As I say, I do not have the detailed information with me, but if there is anything further that I can add, I shall certainly write to him.
Mr. Harry Barnes: Many carcases were disposed of at the Erin Void landfill site in

179
my constituency. When the manager of the site first went there, he said that he was astonished at how close the communities of Duckmanton and Poolsbrook were to it. Will that be taken into account if future use of such areas is considered? Perhaps those communities have had enough. Could communities that have suffered receive some compensation by, for example, extending landfill tax from 20 to 100 per cent?
Margaret Beckett: Obviously, the Government will have to look over time at issues such as the aftermath and the handling of matters such as landfill tax. I know that the Minister for Rural Affairs, who chairs the rural task force, has taken on board my hon. Friend's remarks.
With regard to the handling of cases on the particular landfill site to which my hon. Friend referred, I am sure that he will know that no such use is made of sites without the most thorough consideration of both environmental and health aspects. I know that he will have taken on board my remarks at the outset that we will not use such sites unless we absolutely have to.
Andrew Bennett: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on her appointment and wish her well in making the new Department work effectively. Will she join me in congratulating the very large number of walkers who have behaved extremely responsibly throughout the crisis and shown great restraint? Will she assure them that she is putting pressure on local authorities that have kept footpaths closed long after it was necessary to do so to ensure that all footpaths that can be opened are open for the school holidays?
Margaret Beckett: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. He is right that the walkers of this country have shown the proper respect and concern for the overall welfare of the countryside that we would expect of them. That has been most noticeable. I am sure that he will have noted the burden of my observations about path closure. He is right that in some areas it has been difficult to see how continued closure has been justified. However, where there are genuine local concerns, local authorities will remain able to make that case known and to have it heeded. Obviously, safe handling is essential, although, as he rightly says, it is also essential that we make our countryside available to those who wish to walk in it where it is safe to do so.
Sir Patrick Cormack: In wishing the right hon. Lady well in her very important task, may I ask her two questions? First, will she please have an early discussion with all hon. Members whose constituencies have been affected by this dreadful disease? I have in mind a proper forum that she would attend and where she would have proper discussion. There is a widespread feeling that the epidemic has been badly handled in many respects, and we could doubtless advise her in that regard. Secondly, will she bear it in mind that there will be no final satisfaction unless a proper, independent public inquiry is conducted at the right time?
Margaret Beckett: Of course, I shall take on board the hon. Gentleman's observations. He will appreciate that there are always enormous pressures on the time of
180
Ministers when a new Department is set up. I know that he and the whole House will want Ministers to give top priority to dealing with the practical day-to-day issues, which may help us in bringing the epidemic to an end. I regret that he should repeat what has occasionally been heard from Opposition Members about the bad handling of the outbreak. I remind them that—[Interruption.] It is in the nature of thing s that no one is infallible, except possibly the Pope when he is speaking ex cathedra, but not even he is infallible all the time. [Interruption.] The matter is one of definition. Of course, I fully expect that everybody will have made mistakes. Indeed, it may even be that Opposition Members, including Front Benchers, have occasionally been wrong.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I welcome the right hon. Lady's full and detailed statement and also the fact that she has made it very soon in the new Parliament. Will she respond to the question asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) and tell us whether she will extend the business rate relief scheme beyond the period for which it is scheduled to run? Will she also give me an answer on why the borough of Macclesfield, which I have the honour of representing in this House, is not included in the scheme, even though 90 per cent. of its geographical area is rural and agricultural? Furthermore, will she confirm that it would be irresponsible and wrong to open at this time footpaths that run through livestock farms? Will she also ensure that milk collectors properly disinfect their vehicles on each and every occasion they visit a livestock farm to collect milk?
Margaret Beckett: On the first issue, I cannot add to what I told the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry). We are conscious of the point that he made about the rate relief scheme and, as with other issues, we are taking it under active consideration. I am afraid that I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a more helpful reply about the position of Macclesfield borough council than my right hon. Friend the Minister for Work gave when he made his last statement as Minister of Agriculture. I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman will continue to press his case, as he always does so effectively.
I wholeheartedly endorse the rest of the hon. Gentleman's remarks, in which he put his finger on a number of key issues. It is important for all those who travel in the countryside to observe the correct precautions. Obviously, we are all conscious of what is needed to keep the disease at bay and, it is to be hoped, to bring the outbreak to an end. That is the consideration that local authorities and others have in mind with regard to footpaths. There should be no question of dispute about a footpath in an area where infection still exists. The key is to keep people and infection away from livestock, and I assure him that that point will be under consideration, but I am sure that he would be the last person to suggest that continued blanket closure, potentially throughout the country, is required.
Geraint Davies: May I offer my warmest congratulations to my right hon. Friend on her new appointment? I am sure that she will do a fine job.
My right hon. Friend will know that the spread of foot and mouth in 1967 was much slower and narrower than on this occasion. As has been pointed out, that is due not

181
only to the notification time on first discovery, but to the trading patterns of the industry and the availability of abattoirs. Will she engage with the industry, or is she already engaged with it, to consider ways of reducing the average mobility of livestock, so that the extent and speed of spread of any future outbreak can be limited? Will she weigh the cost of such changes against the massive cost of an outbreak not only to agriculture, but to the tourism industry?
Margaret Beckett: I thank my hon. Friend for his congratulations. His last point is correct; from the beginning, the Government have been mindful of the impact on the whole economy, not only on rural areas and agriculture. He is also correct about the differences, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East and Wallsend (Mr. Brown) highlighted, between the 1967 outbreak and the current one. The delay in notification and different trading patterns in agriculture are crucial.
I am not sure whether the argument about abattoirs is as strong. There were many more abattoirs in 1967, but that did not prevent the number of cases from being substantially greater, even though notification occurred much earlier and the disease was much easier to detect. The significance of the number of abattoirs is therefore in dispute. However, whatever discussions and inquiry follow the outbreak, animal movement will form a key part of the consideration.
Mr. Paul Tyler: The anxieties and severe problems that the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) identified are not local, but relevant to all affected areas, including the south-west. where they are reflected in my constituency and adjoining constituencies.
When the Secretary of State reads Hansard tomorrow, she will regret the complacency on which some of her answers verge. The Government must accept that their handling of the matter has been confusing and complex. The crisis has been difficult to tackle, but I hope that she agrees that it is vital to improve the clarity and certainty with which the Government deal with the problem.
We all accept and welcome the relaxation of movement restrictions. However, does the Secretary of State accept that the biggest problem that confronts those who are indirectly affected in agriculture or related industries is lack of clarity about their cash flow, and uncertainty about compensation and their future? Those are urgent matters. If she continues to give an impression of complacency, the Government will be held to account.
Margaret Beckett: Of course I accept that there is always a greater need for clarity and certainty, not least in making information available to those who need Government support or seek compensation. However, I wholly reject any charge of complacency. I do not feel the slightest sense of complacency about the handling of the outbreak, and I share the anxiety that has been expressed by hon. Members. Nevertheless, I am not prepared to accept unjustified criticism of the Government without responding to it.
Lawrie Quinn: I welcome my right hon. Friend to her new job. I was delighted by the establishment of the Department, which is the way forward for the rural parts of my constituency
182
My right hon. Friend knows that there was a recent outbreak of the disease in Westerdale in the North York moors national park and that the rural economy, especially tourism, in Castleton and Danby has been devastated over many months. I wholeheartedly support the remarks of the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry).
When the regional development agency and others put together the recovery plan, especially for Yorkshire, will my right hon. Friend ensure that the national parks are included in its construction? Will she also make sure that small rural business, such as those in Castleton and Danby, are not forgotten? Sometimes their remoteness makes them believe that they are out of touch with developments. It is essential that they are not excluded and forgotten.
Margaret Beckett: I thank my hon. Friend for his remarks. Of course we shall take account of the problems that arise in the national parks, and involve them. I do not believe that any hon. Member is under an illusion about the difficulties that small, rural businesses have experienced. Although some of the communities to which he referred are small, they are often well known and popular with a much wider group in the community. I therefore assure him and his constituents that there is no question of overlooking their anxieties, fears and problems. The Government will endeavour to tackle them as fully as possible. I know that he shares the view, which the Government have repeatedly expressed, that we can get on with the task better when we bring the outbreak of the disease to an end.
Mr. Peter Atkinson: I welcome the Secretary of State's decision to relax the movement restrictions on livestock for slaughter. However, I want to highlight another problem that is looming in the upland areas of northern England, including my constituency, as we approach the annual sheep sales. Unless movement restrictions are lifted, the sellers of breeding ewe lambs will not be able to sell to their normal traditional markets in non-infected areas in the south of England. The lambs would then end up being fattened for slaughter, and going into an already over-subscribed market. Will she consider relaxing the restrictions on movement of breeding ewes under careful controls to prevent a considerable welfare problem?
Will the Secretary of State clarify who will be the next de facto Minister of Agriculture? Will it be the Minister for Rural Affairs, the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, or Lord Whitty? We would like to know.
Margaret Beckett: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his welcome for the change in movement restrictions. I assure him that, although it has not featured particularly in today's statement for obvious reasons—I have been seeking to give the House the opportunity to consider what has been happening in the interim period—we are all mindful of the further developments that will naturally be taking place in agriculture, and of the impact that they will have on the market. I cannot give him an announcement today, but I can certainly tell him that the Government are mindful of the seriousness of the issues that he raises, and that we are keeping them under active consideration.

183
On who is the de facto Minister of Agriculture, I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for highlighting the strength of my excellent ministerial team. He is right in detecting that my noble Friend Lord Whitty will be dealing day to day with many of the issues, but we are conscious as a ministerial team that there is much overlap and we intend to work closely together to keep a close grip on the issues. With regard to who speaks in this House, it will primarily and usually be me.
Mr. Alex Salmond:Some time ago, when the Secretary of State was making her statement, she said that she was hoping for a return to normality in the farming industry. May I point out to her that if there is a long-term 20-day restriction on movement of livestock, there will be no return of the livestock industry at all in many areas? The Government may learn many lessons from foot and mouth disease, but such a long-term 20-day restriction will make livestock farming in upland Scotland, Wales and many areas of upland England non-viable. Would not it be an irony if a farming business were to survive the ravages of mad cow disease and foot and mouth, only to find an administrative regime making its livestock business non-viable? Do not do it.
Margaret Beckett: It is hard to find any phrase to describe the end of the outbreak. On this occasion, we used the phrase "return to normality", which is not subject to challenge or query. Of course, I take the hon. Gentleman's point. We have been consulting on some of the proposals on restrictions on movement and we are aware that there would not be a return to precisely the circumstances that obtained before the outbreak of the disease. There has been consultation, and Ministers are considering the outcome and the responses to it. I am conscious that the proposals are not at all popular with many people, clearly including some who have spoken to the hon. Gentleman. I am also aware of people's anxiety about the impact of the proposals on the future of livestock farming. However, the House would genuinely consider the Government to be in dereliction of our duty if we did not consider whether changes needed to be made in the light of what we have all learned about the potential impact of the disease in the circumstances of today's agriculture.
Mr. Owen Paterson: On 9 March, American scientists on Plum Island offered the Government the loan, on trial, of a portable computerised device that can detect foot and mouth disease in stock before any symptoms show. This device could have had a significant impact on tracking the development of the disease, and could perhaps have saved many millions of pounds. What progress have the Government made in pursuing this kind offer?
Margaret Beckett: I am aware of the reports, which have appeared before. I am also aware that that is only one of a number of miracle techniques that, if only the Government had used them, would have prevented the outbreak, probably from starting and certainly from spreading. I do not recall the precise detail of that to which the hon. Gentleman referred, although I am aware that similar claims have been made, for example, of a
184
software programme originating in New Zealand, which has been used to some degree. but which is not wholly applicable here.
We must all bear it in mind that there are all sorts of ideas, offers and proposals that can be made and that might assist in dealing with some of those matters, but, as far as I have been able to judge, no one has been able to show that there is some miracle technique that the Government could have used that would have prevented the development and progress of the disease.
Mr. Peter Luff: The Secretary of State may be aware that one of the major mass burial sites lies in my constituency at Throckmorton, but is she aware of how serious the continuing impact of that site is on those who live in the immediate vicinity, despite it not being used for a considerable period? The odour from the rotting carcases is a great deal more serious than was expected and those living in the immediate vicinity find that they cannot sell their houses, which has serious consequences for their personal lives. Will she or the appropriate member of her ministerial team agree to meet me and a small group from the Throckmorton airfield site to discuss its implications for their private lives?
Margaret Beckett: I can certainly undertake to consider the hon. Gentleman's request and of course I take the point about the impact that he describes. Equally, I am sure that he takes the point that, sadly, there is no way to deal with a decease of such gravity and scale that does not involve unpleasant impact for all concerned. That is one of many reasons why the Government's key priority has to be to bring it to an end as speedily as possible.
Mr. David Heath: In Somerset, we thought that we had escaped the worst ravages of the disease, only to find our area reinfected when the spotlight of media and politics was elsewhere. Does the right hon. Lady understand how many businesses in Somerset and across the west country face desperate circumstances? Some are in difficulty as a direct result of disease precautions and some have nothing to do with agriculture or tourism. Certainly, few are directly connected with the shibboleth of footpath closure.
Does the right hon Lady understand that the one thing that those businesses; want at this stage is, to put it crudely, cash? They want cash beyond the scope of rates relief to enable them to survive until the end of the year. Does she further understand that, for many of my constituents, the task force seems to have no concept of either the urgency or the scale of the problem in the rural economy?
Margaret Beckett: Of course I accept that those who are affected in any way, shape or form hope that the Government can find some means to assist them. Sadly, such compensation or support, if it is not direct compensation, cannot always be made available. One of the first steps that I took in the Department was to ask questions and to push for speedier handling of cases in which people have grounds or opportunities to claim under schemes that have been made available. We shall continue to keep up that pressure. but I can only say to the hon. Gentleman, without in any way disputing the seriousness of the position that he described and the

185
concerns of his constituents, that I fear that it may not always be possible to assist everyone in the way that they would hope.
Tony Baldry: I was surprised to be approached yesterday by a farming constituent whose livestock were slaughtered at Easter who has yet to receive any compensation whatever. Will the Secretary of State undertake that, if we give her private office chapter and verse on such cases, they will be investigated as a matter of priority?
Margaret Beckett: We have reinstated the Members' hotline, and the point of that is to ensure that cases can be considered speedily if they come to Members' attention. Like the hon. Gentleman, I am a little surprised to hear of such an outcome, but I undertake that, if he provides us with details, we shall endeavour to ensure that it is properly investigated
Miss Anne McIntosh: I congratulate the right hon. Lady and the Minister on their recent appointments.
I endorse the call for the right hon. Lady not to introduce the 20-day standstill rule, which would simply compound the utter ruin that many farmers face, particularly in North Yorkshire. Incredibly, the Vale of York has not yet had one case of direct infection. Will she today express her regret that the rural task force may have brought unnecessary force to bear on North Yorkshire county council, making the council reach a decision—during the general election and while county councillors were being re-elected—to reopen many footpaths, which will result in contact between livestock and human beings? One particular footpath at Tockwith is causing concern because it is less than two miles from an infected area. Surely such footpaths should not be reopened at this time.
Margaret Beckett: I have taken on board the comment of the hon. Lady and others, and I suspect that more people will express their anxiety about the 20-day movement proposal. I am not aware of the issue that she raises about specific footpaths. She will recall that I said in my statement that we are mindful of getting the balance right between risk of infection and freedom of movement. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Rural Affairs will look into the issue that she raises, and the more detail that she can give us, the more helpful it will be.
Lembit Öpik: First, will the Secretary of State agree to meet her opposite numbers in the Welsh Assembly to find out where the delays in payments to businesses and farmers in Wales are originating? Secondly, will she commit to responding personally to me if I contact her in writing about some form D notices that were imposed in my constituency on the basis of erroneous judgments about the presence of the infection?
Margaret Beckett: It has always been my practice in successive Departments to attempt to reply to hon. Members as speedily as practicable. I was not aware of the potential delays to which the hon. Gentleman refers, but I shall draw the matter to the attention of relevant colleagues.
Mr. James Gray: Livestock farmers in England who apply to the right hon. Lady's Department
186
for grants to convert to organic production, as many are doing in the aftermath of foot and mouth disease, are being told that unlike the position in Wales, where inspectors are still visiting farms, inspectors may not visit farms in England until after an outbreak is over. Will the right hon. Lady explain why there should be that difference between Wales and England? Perhaps she will consider allowing inspectors to visit farms in England.
While organic conversion grants are still being paid to arable farmers in England, is there a risk that the sums available from the Treasury for the purpose of organic conversion will be used up purely on arable farms, making it harder for livestock farmers to get organic conversion grants later?
Margaret Beckett: The hon. Gentleman's final point is valid and we shall certainly bear it in mind. I am not aware of the specific distinctions that he makes in respect of patterns in Wales. The nature of his concern was not wholly clear to me—[Interruption.] I understood his point about inspections, but it was not wholly clear to me why the differences that he identified are arising, or in what circumstances. It may simply be that the people who would have been available are tied up with other matters. I shall certainly make inquiries into that.
On the hon. Gentleman's general point about the future of the farming industry, of course the Government have that under consideration. It is very much part of the discussions that are taking place about the farm recovery plan and the wider discussions that need to be had about the overall and long-term future of sustainable agriculture and of the rural and farming communities.

BILLS PRESENTED
  EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (FINANCE)
  Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, supported by Mr. Secretary Straw, Mr. Secretary Blunkett, Secretary Margaret Beckett, Secretary Clare Short, Mr. Secretary Byers, Mr. Andrew Smith, Ms Secretary Hewitt, Secretary Estelle Morris, Dawn Primarolo, Mr. Paul Boateng and Ruth Kelly, presented a Bill to amend the definition of "the Treaties" and "the Community Treaties" in section 1(2) of the European Communities Act 1972 so as to include the decision of 29th September 2000 of the Council on the Communities' system of own resources: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed. Explanatory notes to be printed [Bill 1].
  HOMELESSNESS
  Mr. Secretary Byers, supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Milburn, Mr. Secretary Murphy, Ms Rosie Winterton and Ms Sally Keeble, presented a Bill to make further provision about the functions of local housing authorities relating to homelessness and the allocation of housing accommodation; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed. Explanatory notes to be printed [Bill 2].

  EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (AMENDMENT)
  Mr. Secretary Straw, supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. Secretary Prescott, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer,

  187
  Mr. Robin Cook, Mr. Secretary Blunkett, Secretary Margaret Beckett, Secretary Clare Short, Mr. Secretary Hoon, Secretary Hewitt, the Solicitor-General and Mr. Peter Hain, presented a Bill to make provision consequential on the Treaty signed at Nice on 26th February 2001 amending the Treaty on European Union, the Treaties establishing the European Communities and certain related Acts: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed. Explanatory notes to be printed [Bill 3].

  CIVIL DEFENCE (GRANT)
  Mr. Secretary Blunkett, supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. Secretary Prescott, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Straw. Mr. Secretary Hoon and Mr. John Denham, presented a Bill to replace section 3 of the Civil Defence Act 1948 in so far as it applies to authorities in England or ales: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed. Explanatory notes to be printed [Bill 4].

Point of Order
Mr. Michael Jack: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. When I returned home last night and listened to the BBC news for the south-east, Lord Whitty was reported as having announced that there will be a full-scale public inquiry into the foot and mouth outbreak, whereas the Secretary of State cast some doubt on that in her statement today. First, through your good offices, Mr. Speaker, could I ask that accurate language is used when Ministers are talking about this sensitive and important matter? Secondly, if there is to be a full-scale public inquiry into the outbreak, could you use your good offices to ensure that the House of Commons hears about it first?
Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman could have put that matter to the Secretary of State when she was making her statement. I cannot be responsible for the Minister's words. I am sure that an appropriate announcement will be made about any public inquiry.

Orders of the Day
  Debate on the Address

    SECOND DAY
    Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [20 June],
    That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, as follows:
    Most Gracious Sovereign,
    We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Majesty for the Gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament.—[Mr. Sheerman.]
    Question again proposed.

    Public Services
    1.31 pm
    The Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Estelle Morris): I congratulate you, Mr. Speaker, on your re-election. I apologise to you and to all Members for not being able to attend the end of the debate. I hope that the House will accept my apologies, and I shall enjoy reading the comments of new and not so new Members in Hansard.
    I shall begin on a point of unanimity. I am pleased that the Opposition have chosen public services for today's debate on the Queen s Speech, because, from wherever we come, we now know that the delivery of public services is, as ever, of prime importance. In this Parliament, there will be an improvement in the delivery of those services. What makes that so important, especially to my Department, is that without good delivery of public services, so much else does not happen. They are the key to individual fulfilment and to people's life chances, and they make a real difference to the quality of life of individuals, communities and the nation.
    I am conscious of the fact that we are all users of public services, but many people work in that sector and serve us well. I want to put on the record my thanks to the many hundreds of thousands, of people who spend their working lives in public service and do an excellent job. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I particularly want to thank those in education from classroom assistants and nursery nurses to teachers, others who work in schools and those who work in further or higher education. What they do is much appreciated, and the quality of their work can determine whether as individuals we flourish and whether as a nation we succeed.
    The Department for Education and Skills is a new Department that will play a crucial role in delivering change and improvement in a key public service. Our job is to ensure that people, at whatever age or stage in their lives, have access to learning and education of the highest quality. For politicians and certainly for a Government, there can be few more important challenges than to get education right. Our obligation to get it right starts with the very young and continues throughout their lives.
    In the next few years, the Department will deal with and improve certain areas. We will start by providing good-quality early-years education and child care, and will go on to ensure that we teach the basics well in

    189
    school, that we introduce children to a broad curriculum, that we celebrate the diversity in schools, and that we achieve a system that tailors schools to the needs of children and not the other way about. Beyond those compulsory years of schooling, there must be routes into learning that motivate people, that keep them going and that give them the chance to continue learning through further and higher education and in the workplace.
    In all that, we must not forget that learning is sometimes for fulfilment and enjoyment as much as it is for employment. That is what our Department is about. If that does not seem a large enough task, on top of that we have the job of guiding education at a time when the system has to respond to a rapidly changing skills base in a world where information and communication technology has transformed the way in which we access information and learning. We have never before had such a challenge.
    If we return to our own schooldays, we remember being given text books at the beginning of term. When we put our names in those books, we found that they had been used not just by students in the previous year but by students over the past 10, 15 or even 20 years. Now, day in, day out, the increasing number of information web pages provides a brilliant example of advances in the transmission of knowledge and in access to learning.
    Ours must be an education service that does not forget the basics—that never forgets our obligation to reading, writing and number and to nursery education, while also being adaptable and flexible enough to meet challenges that have not faced earlier education services. Education is a key public service, which is why the Government are absolutely right to give it priority. The Queen's Speech made that clear.
    Mr. Roy Beggs: Can the Secretary of State assure us that children with special needs will not be forgotten in the ambitious programmes that are being proposed?
    Estelle Morris: I know of the hon. Gentleman's interest in this. He has been a keen attender of education debates and education questions, which is much appreciated.
    I can give the hon. Gentleman such an assurance, but I am well aware that what is easy to say is more difficult to do. The pledge that I can give is that as we develop our range of policies covering all stages of education we will at all times consider the requirements of children with special educational needs, especially during the early years. All too often, tackling those requirements in secondary schools is tackling them too late. I believe that we will get it right if we build good-quality early-years identification into the system, follow ed by support for the children and parents involved. I am nappy to undertake to do that, and to make progress in the current Parliament as we did in the last.
    There is a great deal to do, and I am conscious that in this second Parliament there is much on which to build. Four years of Labour government has brought a real improvement in education, and in life chances. Next September, those who visit schools anywhere in the country—in villages, towns or cities;—will not find five, six and seven-year-olds in classes of over 30. Four years ago, they would have found half a million in classes of
    190
    that size. In every age range—key stage 1, key stage 2 and
    secondary—they will see better class sizes and better pupil-teacher ratios. Moreover, we are building on the best batch of literacy and numeracy results that 11-year-olds have ever achieved.
    I know the difficulty that schools are experiencing with teacher recruitment. Nothing that I say diminishes it, or fails to acknowledge that a task confronts us. But there are more teachers in schools than there were four years ago, and the quality of those now leaving training is better than it has ever been. One million adults have individual learning accounts, and, thanks to the learning and skills councils, training opportunities and education are for the first time being brought together throughout the sector. After four years of Labour government, 88 per cent. of schools are connected to the internet.
    Whatever those statistics tell us, however, I think that the real difference that we have begun to make to the education service is this. Over the past four years, we have started to make people believe that education success is not rationed: it is not limited to certain parts of the country and certain sections of society. That aspiration for all, that belief that we must not turn our back on failure, and that confidence that we have a nation whose members and groups all have talent, ambition and skills—regardless of the postcode into which they are born, of the ethnic minority into which they may have been born and of their gender—represent a cultural change that has begun over those four years. Above all, the progress that we have made has been in embedding that high aspiration and expectation in the system.
    Mr. Peter Lilley: I congratulate the right hon. Lady, and welcome her to her post.
    Is the right hon. Lady aware of the great concern expressed on the doorsteps by pupils, parents and teachers about the way in which AS-levels were introduced, and about their long-term consequences? Is she satisfied that it was right to introduce them without any parliamentary debate, and will she instigate an inquiry into the mishandling of the process and its long-term consequences and bring the results to the House?
    Estelle Morris: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for those comments and for his congratulations. He is right: there is concern about AS-level examinations at the end of the first year six. That is why, well within a week of taking up the post, I asked the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority to conduct an inquiry. My instinct is that we should not go back from supporting a broader curriculum for sixth form students. Indeed, that was the common starting point for us all. It is all right having parliamentary debate, but no one in this House or outside wanted us to keep the narrow range of A-level specialisms. Indeed, compared with our competitor nations, we fall behind by making children specialise too early.
    Therefore, I want to keep that breadth, but I think that the right hon. Gentleman is right. My instinct is this. Children are doing two years' study in first year six and second year six. They are interrupted too much by having to prepare for exams at the end of the first year six. It disrupts that continuity and gets in the way of their learning.

    191
    I do not think that that huge change was got entirely right. That is why it is right to ask the QCA to take the matter forward. Although I understand why the right hon. Gentleman makes the point—I accept that people will score points on the issue—it is important not to confuse young people. I give this assurance to sixth formers who are taking those examinations now. They have not wasted their time. Their exams and results will be recognised by universities and employers and they will be praised for having studied a greater breadth of curriculum than they might otherwise have done.
    For decades, a fatalism has been embedded into the system: a belief that some schools, some people and some neighbourhoods could not improve. That is beginning to change, too. Whatever the global figures are—I could reel them off until the end of the week almost—this is what is important about the statistics and raw data from the past four years: literacy and numeracy levels have gone up across the nation, but they have gone up more in areas of greatest deprivation.
    I was in Tower Hamlets this morning. The greatest thing about Tower Hamlets is that the literacy and numeracy of its 11-year-olds has improved more than in any other borough in the country. If it can be done in Tower Hamlets, it can be done anywhere. It is about embedding high aspiration. GCSE results have improved. That is great, but they have improved the most in education action zones and excellence in cities areas. The excellence challenge, which supports children from deprived backgrounds going into education, is on course too and that will make a difference.
    Education action zones and excellence in cities areas serve some of the most difficult communities. For too long, we have said that they have done well, given where they come from. Now we see better attendance rates, lower exclusions and higher achievement rates. If we learn anything from those figures, it is that we should never give up on any school, any child or any local education authority. The evidence of the past four years is that, if we get the strategies right, we can make a difference throughout the nation in every sector of our community.
    Mr. David Curry: In properly commending improvements in schools, will the right hon. Lady recognise what every teacher knows in schools, there are good cohorts and bad cohorts, and some years can be pretty dreadful and others better? Therefore, it is unrealistic to expect schools year on year to record improvements in things such as SATs —standard assessment tasks. Will she judge schools according to the trend over a reasonable period and remove the pressure on head teachers? Every year, irrespective of the cohort, schools are supposed to be better than the previous year.
    Estelle Morris: I accept what the right hon. Gentleman says. I was a teacher and I remember only too well that cohorts tended to differ. What I do not accept—I do not think that there is any evidence for it—is that the whole nation's year-group cohort will differ that much. Therefore, I would expect improvements year on year in the nation's results as a whole. I do not think that we would find too much difference.
    192
    We must keep the focus on the results, but we want to move to value added as soon as we can for two reasons. First, as the right hon Gentleman said, it may appear that a cohort has attained less because of the starting point. Secondly, we must also address the complacency issue, as some schools take in relatively good cohorts but do not improve them to the necessary level.
    Therefore, we have not only to avoid complacency but to recognise achievement where it exists. The sooner that we can achieve value-added results, the better it will be. It is about getting the key indices in place, which I reckon we will be able to do in 2002.
    Mrs. Theresa May: As the Secretary of State knows, I have much sympathy with her comments on value-added league tables. However, the Government were elected in 1997 promising value-added league tables. They have not delivered that promise. Will she give a target date for the implementation of value-added league tables?
    Estelle Morris: Had the previous Tory Government done some of the leg work and ground work, we might have been able more quickly to achieve the results that we now hope to achieve in two years. In 1997, when I took up my previous post in the then Department for Education and Employment, I did not find research and plans on value-added results. However, I think—I shall correct myself if I am wrong—that the first value-added results will be made available in 2002.
    We have already introduced improvement indices. Although they are not the same as a value-added index, they show schools' annual improvement. I am glad that hon. Members on boll sides of the House want both the raw data to measure results nationally and the value-added results.
    Geraint Davies: I congratulate my right hon. Friend or her recent appointment. She will probably know that the improvements in the New Addington education action zone, which she has visited, have been achieved more quickly than those that have been made across the board in Croydon. Does she agree that such improvements are not only about investment but about lifting children's self-esteem? Many children are told by their fathers, if they have a father at home, that they will not be good at school because their fathers themselves were never good at school. We must work both with families and with schools to instil in children the confidence to believe that they can succeed in school. Such action, with investment in education, can deliver previously unimagined results in areas of deprivation.
    Estelle Morris: I am happy to agree with my hon. Friend. I had the privilege of visiting with him the New Addington education action zone, of which he has been a strong advocate. I pay tribute to the teachers and others who have worked there. Their message to children of self-esteem and self- North has probably done more than anything else to achieve the results that my hon. Friend has described.
    There is a strain of pessimism that seems to hold that we cannot do anything about some schools and some local education authorities, but that pessimism has been questioned in the past four years. The statistics say it all.

    193
    In the past four years, 740 schools have come out of special measures, and 18 local education authorities have been subject to intervention measures.
    Although we had headlines for decades about poor LEAs, previous Governments did absolutely nothing about them. If LEAs really are worth something and have an important role to play, it is very important that we move in and take action when they are failing. In the years to come, we shall continue to use those powers to allow schools and LEAs to get on with it when they have shown that they can do so, but intervene when necessary to prevent failure. Nevertheless, for all the improvement and progress that have been made in areas such as that described by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, Central (Geraint Davies) where there has been a culture of low expectations, there is still a whole lot more to do.
    It is a cruel irony that, at the very point in the development of this nation when education is more important than ever before both for economic prosperity and for social justice, the gap between different sections of our community is still too wide. The gap between the performance of schools in similar circumstances is still too wide. In almost all parts of the education service, the gap between the relative performance of boys and girls and of different ethnic groups is still too wide. The gap in performance between people from different economic backgrounds is still too great.
    Although we can celebrate this week's report from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development that we have the OECD's highest level of bachelor-level graduations, the fact is that an estimated 7 million adults in the United Kingdom have not got the basics right in reading, writing and arithmetic.
    I welcome the expansion in higher education, and acknowledge that some of it happened under the previous Government, but only 17 per cent. of young people from the lower socio-economic groups go on to higher education as opposed to 45 per cent. from the more affluent groups. That is part of the challenge that we face. We will not close the gap unless we invest in education and training. Spending on all sectors in education increased in the previous Parliament and will continue to do so in this one.
    As the Prime Minister said yesterday, spending will continue to increase by an average of 5.4 per cent. in real terms over the next three years, meaning that we can build on the investment that we have already made and continue to invest in people and their life chances. It will mean that, by 2004, we will be spending £500 million on sure start, reaching a third of all poor children aged four and under.
    We will be able to fund 1.6 million child care places by 2004, and we will have mote and better trained teachers and assistants. More child care places have been provided in the past two years than in the previous 20. That is the mark of progress, but the mark of how much more we have to do is that we still cannot satisfy the demand of every parent.
    I said that there were 7 million adults without basic skills. Our investment will mean that 750,000 fewer will lack those skills, and we will set a target of 50 per cent. of under–30s going on to higher education by 2010. We will be able to build on our programme for gifted and talented children. We will work with universities and colleges to ensure that we expand that sector, but this time
    194
    we will do something about broadening access as well. Expansion alone is not enough. We do not want the figures about the balance of socio-economic backgrounds to remain the same in 2010.
    The Queen's Speech makes it clear that our priority in this Parliament will be to deliver on our commitments and make real changes to secondary schools.
    Dr. Liam Fox: In considering access, will the Secretary of State also take into account cross-departmental issues as well as those that are entirely within her own remit? For example, children with special educational needs have been mentioned. For children with speech and language development problems in north Somerset, it is almost impossible to get a speech therapist. Will she and the Secretary of State for Health set targets so that we can see what progress is being made in recruiting speech therapists for some of our most vulnerable children?
    Estelle Morris: I am interested to hear the hon. Gentleman talk about setting targets. In my previous existence on the Front Bench, I often heard the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May), argue that targets are a bad thing—but we always welcome a conversion.
    I acknowledge that there is a need to work across Departments. and that the question of speech and language therapists is key. Not enough were trained in the past, and there is a real problem of access. It is intolerable if the problem is caused by an argument about who employs them, who funds them, and who is responsible for getting the relevant part of the statement right. Sure start is a good example of cross-departmental working. It has not been easy, but we will continue to make our best endeavours.
    Dr. Evan Harris: On access, will the Secretary of State give some thought to the effect of the perception of likely student debt, especially on people from poorer backgrounds? The Government-commissioned Callender report, published on Christmas eve, showed clearly that the people most affected by increased debt are those from poorer backgrounds. As the Select Committee also suggested, that could be the cause of the disappointing figures for poorer students going on to higher education. Will she consider the Scottish example, and draw the conclusions that I believe are out there?
    Estelle Morris: We have never pretended that this is not a difficult issue. We have acknowledged that if we want an expansion in higher education we must think seriously about how we fund it. Life has changed in those respects. When Lord Dearing considered how we could get the balance right about how much comes from students, how much from families and how much from the nation, it became clear that these were tough decisions. I think that we made the right decision; the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) is not correct to say that the evidence shows that there has been a downturn in people applying to enter higher education. I believe that the figures show that there was a 1.8 per cent. increase in people applying for higher education places last year. We await the results of the review to which he

    195
    referred, but no doubt we shall return to the issue in the coming months. Like him, we shall continue to monitor the evidence.
    With reference to particular items in the Queen's Speech, we made it clear that our priority for this Parliament will be secondary schools. May I say as loudly and clearly as possible that we have many fine secondary schools and as many excellent secondary schoolteachers as primary schoolteachers? However, if one looks at the evidence, no one—no teacher, politician or parent—can possibly think that we are good enough or as good as we can be at secondary level. We must look at what is happening at key stage 3 to 11 to 14-year-olds. When tested at the end of year 7, their first year of secondary school, about a third of our students perform less well in the basic subjects than at the end of year 6. Not only have they not made the progress that we expect; they have gone backwards.
    Key stage 3 results over the past few years are flat, to say the least. Ofsted comments on the quality of teaching at key stage 3 show that it is not as good as it is for all other age ranges. That cannot be right; we cannot accept that position, and must improve it. It is not a criticism of the profession to say that anybody who teaches years 7, 8 and 9 has not got it right and has failed; it is a fault of the system. Schools and previous Governments have not given enough attention to what happens in the transition from primary to secondary school or what happens in those early years. All the levers that have been applied have been about performing well at key stage 2 and at GCSE level. Too often, years 7, 8 and 9 have been left to coast, and the emphasis in secondary schools has been on year 10 and 11 students. The statistics show that the best predictor of GCSE performance is how students perform at key stage 3. We have got to get that right.
    We will do that in partnership; we have to be rigorous and demanding, but we will also be supportive. This September, all our secondary schools will start to extend the literacy and numeracy strategy into the early years of secondary education. The most literate and numerate bunch of 11-year-olds that we have ever had are about to go into secondary schools this September. Not only are they the most literate and numerate 11-year-olds that we have ever had, they are better at science, are more competent in information and communication technology and have confidence in themselves. We cannot let them down or put them into a key stage 3 system that has always allowed children to go backwards, rather than push them forward.
    Key stage 3 is therefore important and we shall invest in teachers' professional development so that, over the next few years, all our secondary teachers are up to date in best practice, have learned what works and have learned from their colleagues who are performing at the highest level. That will be funded; teachers will be supported and helped to manage that change. I want to make it clear that the key stage 3 strategy was not dreamed up by me, my colleagues, or civil servants. It was developed by our finest secondary schoolteachers; we are learning from what works best and what has been successful in schools.
    Our focus will remain clearly on teaching and learning because they make a difference. To improve them, we must build more levers into the system, which is why we
    196
    are embarking on an ambitious agenda to create a diverse school system. All schools need to be good at the basics and teach the national curriculum well. However, they need to do more than that; they must be good at the basics and good at something special. We already have the beginnings of a diversity agenda in our school system. We have specialist schools, beacon schools, training schools, church schools and schools with a generous spirit that are supporting schools in other parts of the local education authority. Today, we announced a further 79 specialist schools and a further 425 beacon schools, exceeding the target that we set ourselves. Let us be absolutely straight that on offer will not tie a two-tier system, but a guarantee to every parent and child that our schools are well funded, teach the national curriculum and are good at the basics. Every parent knows from visits to secondary schools that much is the same in every school—they all teach the national curriculum and go through the same testing regime, and they even look vaguely similar—but that something is different about every one. There is something special about every single secondary school in this country. We intend to allow schools to build on that specialness and to allow ourselves, as a nation, to celebrate that diversity and to install the levers for school improvement.
    Adam Price: The Secretary of State referred in her comments to this country and this nation. It might aid my understanding as a new Member if she clarified exactly which nation she means. When she introduces any new provisions for education in England and Wales, will she undertake to respect the judgment of the Labour Minister for Education and Lifelong Learning in the National Assembly for Wales that specialist schools are neither attractive nor practical in terms of Welsh educational need or values?
    Estelle Morris: The hon. Gentleman knows full well where my responsibilities lie. Devolving power means that nations make their choices and exercise their preferences about how they guide their systems, and I have regular contact with my colleague and shall continue to do so. We exchange ideas, but she will develop her own system. Our White Paper will also refer to that issue.
    Mr. Phil Willis: I congratulate the right hon. Lady on her new post, which is a well deserved promotion. She smiled when she said that the new system would not be a two-tier one, because she knows full well that there is a two-tier system. Some 40 per cent. of schools will be specialist schools and they will get £500,000 more over four years, so it is a two-tier system in terms of funding. The extra 100 faith schools will also be able to select on the basis of faith. Increasingly, under this Government, we see not diversity, but schools being able to choose students. What will the Secretary of State do for the 60 per cent. of schools classified as "bog standard" and will she distance herself from that awful comment? How will she ensure that those schools that are not beacon schools, church schools or specialist schools will not be disadvantaged by receiving fewer resources to meet the aspirations of their children?
    Estelle Morris: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his words of congratulation. Sameness is not what parents want, and sameness does not raise standards. Schools have their

    197
    own characters and missions—they ale not all the same, as I have said—and we want a secondary school system that allows schools to build on those differences. Our aspirations do not stop at 40 per cent. of our secondary schools being specialist schools. We are into transformation and radical change, and that will take time.
    The hon. Gentleman will agree that when we came into power in 1997 the specialist school movement was an exclusive club. The progress that we have made has meant that some of the schools in our inner cities that serve the most disadvantaged areas—such as Golden Hillock school near my constituency in Birmingham—have received specialist school status, and they would not have come anywhere near it under the Conservative Government. I have every aspiration for schools to reach that standard. and he should listen to us when we say that that is our target. In the medium and long term we want to be able to respond to every school that wants to be a specialist school and is ready to take on that role. That is the message. We want diversity for every school—not diversity for a few or rationed diversity—to enable them to play to their strengths.
    The diversity in schools that I do not like is that between the good and the bad, which has caused us difficulty for generation after generation. Although we have a record of success in turning failing schools around, some schools still have not made it. Some schools, often in neighbourhoods where no child has ever gone to university and nothing more has been expected from the school than what it has been able to give historically, have not made it, and we must conquer that problem. We have tried a number of methods over the past four years, with considerable success, but we have not yet got it completely right. I promise the House, parents and schools that we will not turn our back on a school where underachievement is almost institutionalised. We will work with it to ensure improvement, but we need to find more ways to achieve that.
    That is why the Queen's Speech made it clear, as will the Bill that eventually comes before, Parliament, that we want to make partnerships with the voluntary and private sectors to find innovative ways to turn around failing schools. Our diverse school system contains a group of schools at the cutting edge that do very well and are the innovators for the next generation of school improvement. I want to free them up to he innovators, and they too may want to seek relationships and partnerships with the private and voluntary sectors. I want them to be able to do so.
    This is not about privatisation. As has been the case with local education authorities, we will be rigorous when it comes to spending public sector money on contracts with the private sector. There is no question of money being handed over with no targets being set, and without accountability, measurement or a clear vision of where that money will go. The Queen's Speech makes it clear that the challenge of education in the public service is so important, and so much to be cherished, that we are not prepared to forbid the use of private sector expertise where that may be of help. The aim is to find ways in which the private and voluntary sectors can support the better delivery of public service.
    198
    I have no doubt about the responsibility that we have with regard to those who use and work in the public service. We have the highest of aspirations. We know that it will not be easy over the next few years. We have a good education service, but it could be better.
    As Secretary of State, I am lucky to work with the finest generation of teachers that any Secretary of State has had the privilege to work with. Our pledge to teachers is that we will offer true partnership when it comes to raising standards. Our pledge to parents and pupils is that we will not rest until our education service is the best in the world. It must offer pupils the opportunity to aspire and succeed, and it must be able to realise the dreams and aspirations of all parents and students. That is what they want, and what we want. That is what we will deliver.
    2.8 pm
    Mrs. Theresa May: I congratulate the Secretary of State on her appointment and welcome her to her new, more senior position in the Department. I was also going to congratulate the Minister for Universities on her promotion, but I see that she has just left the Chamber. However, I should like to welcome the other members of the Department's team. The Minister for Schools is a former Treasury Minister, so I am sure that he will be able to give us new insights into how to get around the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I also welcome to the departmental team the hon. Member for Bury, South (Mr. Lewis), and am pleased to welcome back to the education arena the hon. Member for Wentworth (John Healey), with whom I served on the Select Committee on Education and Employment.
    I am pleased to start by noting two points of agreement with the Secretary of State: I agree that the quality of public services affects the quality of people's lives, and I am also happy to join her in paying tribute to those who work tirelessly to deliver good public services to users. However, she does not need me to tell her that she comes to her job with a full in-tray. There is much to be done to improve the education system in this country if, as she proposes, it is to be the best in the world. There is also much to be done to put right the problems caused by the Labour Government's first term in office.
    The clear message from the general election for all politicians is that we must address the everyday problems that people—both workers and users—identify in the public services. Sadly missing from the Gracious Speech and from the opening speech made by the Secretary of State today is any sign that the Government really understand the problems faced by people working in the public services, and especially by those working in education and the health service. It is those problems that affect the quality of service provided. If the Government believe that they can reform public services without solving the problems faced by those working in the public services, they are gravely mistaken. We desperately need to raise the morale of the teaching profession and of health service professionals and give them greater scope to use their skills and professionalism in the interests of pupils and patients. We have a real crisis of teacher shortages and problems of shortages of nurses and doctors.
    In education there are real problems involving rising secondary class sizes. I listened with interest to the Secretary of State's comments on class sizes. She omitted to mention that secondary class sizes are now at their

    199
    highest level for more than 20 years, that we have more than 100,000 more children in secondary schools in classes of more than 30 than we had four years ago, and that we have more than 5,000 more children in nursery classes of more than 30 than four years ago. There is also chaos in our post-16 exam system, yet none of those problems is addressed in the Government's programme.
    We have been promised more structural reform in health and education. In education we have been promised more sponsorship of schools, which has been interpreted as more private sector involvement, and more freedom for successful schools. If that means a damascene conversion of the Labour party to the cause of setting schools free, letting teachers teach and allowing the private sector to run schools that are funded by the taxpayer, I welcome it.
    I certainly welcome the Government's conversion to the policy that all schools should be able to establish their own ethos and distinctive educational offer for local children. Over the past four years, I have heard the Government talk about restricting specialist schools and the ability of schools to have the freedom to set their own ethos, so I welcome their sudden conversion to offering that to all schools.
    Anyone who talks to teachers can be in no doubt about the burden of their work load, the problems of red tape and their disillusionment. Anyone who speaks to heads can be in no doubt that they want more money without strings attached. If the Government intend to give schools genuine freedom, I welcome it. We on these Benches may be forgiven a certain sense of deja vu. Four years ago the Labour Government told us that the private sector would be able to run schools, but they failed to deliver. Four years ago they told us that they would cut bureaucracy in schools and let teachers get on with their job, but they failed to deliver. The same Government who tell us today that they will give more freedom to successful schools, three years ago abolished that freedom when they abolished grant-maintained status. Their conversion today will come as little comfort to schools that have seen budgets cut, courses closed and staff made redundant as a result of that abolition. Nevertheless, I repeat that I hope that schools will get genuine freedom.
    I also hope that the Secretary of State's appointment will mean a move away from eye-catching headlines, initiatives, spin and gimmickry, although the first signs are not promising. Yesterday morning we heard in the Gracious Speech that reform of education would
    "promote diversity … provide new opportunities for school sponsorship … and greater freedom for successful headteachers and governors."
    That was spun to the press as greater private sector involvement in schools—the private sector being brought in to run schools. Yet barely had we returned from another place when we saw in the Department's press release, explaining that the education Bill was being published, that promoting diversity meant city academies, more faith schools and introducing advanced specialist schools—the very same advanced specialist schools to which the Government referred in their Green Paper last February. We are told that these schools could volunteer to take on a number of innovative ideas from a menu developed centrally—so much for freedom and diversity.
    Far from the private sector coming in to run schools, it will be able, we are told, to introduce fixed-term standards contracts to enable private organisations and others to
    200
    support the management of schools. In other words, the private sector can help out so long as it helps out as the Government prescribe. Who, I wonder, will determine the nature of the standards contracts?
    If the Government are serious about genuine freedom for schools, they need to take a leap of faith. They must trust teachers again in the provision of the curriculum, get more money direct to schools and start trusting heads and teachers to make the right funding decisions for their schools. They must accept that heads and teachers must be allowed to enforce discipline, free from constraints from central Government. Will the Government show their faith in heads by removing the fines imposed on schools for excluding pupils? Will they ensure that the authority of head teachers is not undermined by local education authorities overturning decisions on exclusions on appeal? Will the Government show faith with heads and teachers by accepting that schools need to be set free from the burden of central Government bureaucracy?
    The Secretary of State can make no better start in her office than by tearing up vast numbers of directives and circulars that will otherwise be issued by her Department to schools and teachers. So far we have seen little sign of that. I hope that over the next few weeks she will be willing to take that leap of faith, and trust heads and teachers. Certainly, all schools must be given the opportunity to manage their own affairs and develop their distinctive ethos. will she show faith in heads and teachers by offering the new freedoms of which she speaks to all schools, not just to a chosen few flagship examples?
    Will the new legislation include measures to amend the law to give private companies the ability to incentivise staff, as in other sectors and as called for by David Hart of the National Association of Head Teachers and by the chairman and chief executive of Nord Anglia Education? Will the Government enable private companies to make a profit out of their involvement in schools? The answers to those questions will show the extent to which the Government are serious about providing genuine private sector involvement in and genuine freedom for schools.
    Mr. Willis: Clearly, Tory party policy is to move towards private sector involvement in the delivery of front-line services in schools. Will the hon. Lady explain how a company such as Nord Anglia, which is a for-profit company, actually makes a profit from that? Where does the profit come from, if not from employing fewer or different teachers, as 80 per cent. of a school's budget is spent on the personnel who deliver the programmes of study?
    Mrs. May: The hon. Gentleman has omitted to notice that the policy of bringing the private sector into schools is now Government policy. I am saying that I support that policy, but I want to know whether the Secretary of State is genuinely willing to do that and to give freedom to schools.
    What matters to parents and pupils is the quality of education that children receive. What matters to them is getting an education that can fulfil the needs and develop the full potential of every individual child. That is why I

    201
    want freedom for schools. That is why I want schools to be able to use whatever services are necessary to ensure that they can provide that quality of education.
    Several hon. Members rose—
    Mrs. May: I will make a little more freedom—[Laughter.] I mean, progress. That shows I genuinely believe in freedom.
    We will support freedom for schools, but we will not hesitate to point out where the Government circumscribe that freedom by red tape and bureaucracy.
    Two weeks ago the electorate gave Labour the benefit of the doubt—[Interruption.] The Secretary of State may laugh but she knows that she will be judged not on her rhetoric, but on whether she delivers. She needs not only to deliver on her proposals in the Gracious Speech, but to resolve the serious problems facing education that were not referred to in the Government's programme.
    The single biggest challenge facing the Government is the crisis in the teaching profession as seen in teacher recruitment and retention. The Government claim to have increased the number of teachers by 11,000 over the past four years, yet that figure includes unqualified teachers and some supply staff. The Government now have a target of recruiting 10,000 extra teachers by 2006. What does that figure mean? I hope that Minister s will today explain whether that means 10,000 more than the total number today, 10,000 more than current targets, a net gain of 10,000 more teachers or just increasing the numbers coming in without doing anything to stem the flow of teachers from the profession in droves.
    The Government are a Government of targets, yet they refuse to set a target for reducing the number of teacher vacancies. That would show their commitment to solving the problems facing our schools, but perhaps their refusal is not surprising.
    Estelle Morris: The way we count teachers and arrive at the conclusion that there are 11,000 more than in 1997 is exactly the way in which the previous Government did the teacher count—nothing has charged. We all have a responsibility for the message that we send about the work of the profession. Opposition parties, that say that there has not been an increase in the number of teachers in the classroom let down teachers and parents.
    Will the hon. Lady comment on her target for increasing teacher recruitment? The Conservative party made it clear that it would not devote one penny to that, so we can be thankful that we have the resources. There will be 10,000 more teachers. Will she also acknowledge that the number of people leaving the profession is not sky high, as she said, and that the net gain over the past four years is indeed 11,000?
    Mrs. May: The only people who are letting down parents, pupils and teachers are the Government, who consistently refuse to accept the extent of the crisis in teacher shortages. During the general election campaign, at the conference of the National Association of Head Teachers, I heard the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman), the Chairman of the Select Committee, tell head teachers that there was no problem of teacher shortages and no crisis. He received the expected reaction from head teachers, who would not believe him because
    202
    they knew the reality. Once again, the Government are setting their face against the reality of what is happening in our schools.
    Mr. Barry Sheerman: The hon. Lady had selective hearing that day, as she obviously has today. I have a witness sitting on the Liberal Benches who will attest to this. I acknowledged that there were problems, but I do not accept her constant theme of crisis, crisis, crisis. That is not true. and that is the case that I made.
    Mrs. May: There is a crisis, as is evident from The Times Educational Supplement, which advertises 9,000 jobs in a week. The sum of £7 million has been taken out of our schools' expenditure, and head teachers must search desperately to find teachers to fill their vacancies. It is time that the Government accepted that there is a crisis in schools, and realised that the bureaucracy and red tape that they have loaded on to teachers over the past four years is causing teachers to leave the profession. That is happening in other public services as well. People cannot deliver the quality of public service that they want to deliver to pupils, patients and others who use our public services.
    Mr. David Rendel: Will the hon. Lady give way?
    Mrs. May: I must make some progress. I apologise to the hon. Gentleman.
    Perhaps the Government's reluctance to face the issue of teacher vacancies is not surprising, given that The Times Educational Supplement and the Secondary Heads Association estimate that the current number of vacancies in secondary schools alone is 10,000. The National Association of Schoolmasters/Union of Women Teachers estimates that there are some 30,000 vacancies in total. Against that background, a policy of recruiting an extra 10,000 teachers, be they full-time equivalents or not, over five years will make no real difference.
    While the Government, during the election campaign, were denying that there was a crisis in teacher vacancies, Anwell Jones, the deputy head teacher of Ashford high school in Surrey, was warning:
    "The quality of supply staff is so uneven that it has an effect on pupil behaviour. It might be better to give them four good days and send them home for one day, rather than a full diet that proves counter-productive."
    One of the first priorities of the Secretary of State must surely be to ensure that standards in our schools do not suffer as a result of the crisis of teacher vacancies, yet there is nothing in the Gracious Speech to address the issue; nor is there any sign of the urgent action that needs to be taken to restore the morale of the teaching profession.
    We await the findings of the study commissioned by the Government into teachers' work load, but that has kicked the problem into the long grass, and action is needed today. Notwithstanding the findings of that report, the Government must quickly find a way to ensure that teachers are trusted again, feel valued and receive the support that they need from Government, not constant interference. That is today's problem, which needs action

    203
    now. All the Secretary of State's promised reforms will be worthless if there are not enough teachers to put them into practice.
    The House will be aware that, as has been pointed out by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley), there has been a major problem with the new AS-level system. It is clearly important that students are provided with a breadth of studies. The Secretary of State mentioned the need for a breadth of curriculum, but what is worrying about the AS system. combined with requirements for key skills, is not only the work load that it imposes on students, but the way in which other activities, such as sports, voluntary work and the arts, are being crowded out.
    At a time when young people should be given opportunities to develop not just study skills in individual subjects but wider interests and involvements, there is simply no time. In the Daily Telegraph yesterday there was a report on As-levels.
    Mr. Kevin Hughes: This will be authoritative.
    Mrs. May: We hear laughter from those on the Labour Benches, but I shall quote students and teachers. I know that the Government have difficulty with that, but they are people who have been through the AS-level experience and speak about its impact. For example, Amy Jackson, a 17-year old who has just finished sitting the old style A-levels, said:
    "This year, the lower sixth has had no time to look beyond a limited syllabus. The choir is working at less than half strength, the plays have been noticeably under-rehearsed, sports fixtures have been dramatically scaled down, and the school newspaper has been suspended because the editorial staff are all sitting exams."
    Far from broadening the experience of those young people, their experience has been narrowed.
    The deputy head of Mill Hill, Julian Johnson-Mundy, said:
    "There's time only to spoon feed as much as we can into the pupils before the exams. Breadth of approach has disappeared. What's left is a narrower and weaker academic syllabus and a poorer extra-curricular programme."
    The principal of Cardiff Academy spoke of the reason for these problems:
    "lack of planning, lack of consultation, speed of implementation and an over-prescriptive syllabus."
    The consequence is
    "children taught at top speed in larger classes for a shorter period than ever before."
    We welcome the fact that the Government have set up a review to examine what has happened. Although change needs to be carefully thought through and introduced to prevent further problems, it is clear that action needs to be taken to resolve problems before next year. However, we need a wider debate. We need to ask whether the new AS exams were exams too far. Has not the time come for a national debate on our qualifications system post-16? We owe it to our young people to get that right. Mere tinkering at the edges risks further change and further problems down the road.
    Much focus has been placed on schools, and the Secretary of State noted that the Government's programme is focused entirely on secondary schools. However, another
    204
    part of our education system has been experiencing difficulties. The further education sector finds that it is losing lecturers to secondary schools. There is an industrial dispute in further education and all too often, in looking at the problems in FE, the Government forget that as many as 50 per cent. of FE colleges' staff may be support staff, not lecturers. Those are the immediate issues facing the Secretary of State, but they are not addressed in the Gracious Speech. We want action on those problems, not just on the structural reforms that the Government mention in their legislative programme.
    The Government will be judged on whether they take action on such problems, not on whether they can introduce another education Bill in the House of Commons. We want an education system that delivers the type of schools that parents want for their children—schools where teachers can spend more time working with the children to make sure that they are properly motivated and get the best education possible, schools that give children a start in life that equips them to go on and realise their ambition and full potential, and schools with a sense of discipline where pupils can get on and learn without disruption from other pupils and where teachers are teachers, not policemen.
    Mr. Rendel: The hon. Lady has said repeatedly that she wants to free up schools. What would she say to the head teacher of a small rural primary school in my constituency, who called me in during the election and said that teachers and head teachers were already doing far too much administration, and that she was worried about the possibility of a new Conservative Government because in her view freeing up schools would mean that more administration was passed from the local authority to the teachers and head teachers?
    Mrs. May: I am grateful to that head teacher for her confidence in the election turning out somewhat differently than it did She was identifying the strain that she was already feeling as a result of the bureaucracy imposed by this Labour Government.
    This Labour Government will be judged over the next four or five years on whether they free up teachers to get on with the job of teaching and remove administrative burdens from head teachers—whether they give head teachers the freedom to make the decisions that they want to make for their schools and do not tie them up in red tape, circumscribing them constantly by telling them what to do and interfering. This Labour Government will be judged on whether, at the end of this Parliament, schools face fewer than 58 funding streams. All those different streams have different rules and are differently administrated—taking up more time and resources just to get money from the Government.
    Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: Will the hon. Lady give way?
    Mrs. May: No, I will not give way any further.
    The Government are doing nothing about the problem of bureaucracy and red tape facing head teachers today. The Government have been told for four years that they should be doing something about it, but they have failed to deliver. We have seen no evidence today or in the Gracious Speech that the Government have learned from

    205
    teachers and head teachers about the problems that they face and are willing to address those problems. It is on whether they deliver on those problems and not simply deliver yet another education Bill that the Government will be judged.
    We want quality of standards, choice and discipline to be the objective of the Government's reform programme. I seek an assurance from the Secretary of State that the detail of her programme is as ambitious and far-reaching as we expect and the children of this country deserve. We now need to raise aspirations in too many schools, and one does not do so by burdening schools with red tape and constant Government interference: one does so by setting schools free, letting teachers get on with their jobs, widening diversity and increasing parental choice. We shall support measures that achieve such ends, but we will give the Government no quarter if their reforms do not live up to the expectations and ambitions of parents, pupils, heads and teachers.
    The Government were given the benefit of the doubt at the election, but they will soon find that they have run out of excuses for failing to deliver. There is no more time for spin, gimmicks or initiative overload; now is the time for action.
    2.32 pm
    Mr. Clive Soley: I welcome my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Estelle Morris) to her post as the Secretary of State for Education and Skills. There could be no better exponent of our education policies than her, and I am delighted that she is where she is.
    The hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) would not want to accept advice from me, but if one has recently failed an examination—the Conservative party failed the exam badly—it is better to look at what one has got wrong rather than try to lecture those who have passed the examination on what they got wrong. We must have done something right to be returned with such a thumping great majority for the second time. I am delighted at that.
    I have waited for many years— the recent general election was my sixth—for the Labour party to be returned for a second full term in government. It was vital that we achieved that, and it is vital that we deliver. In the past I have seen our party make the mistake of trying to solve all public sector and other problems quickly, and then lose because it has not struck the right balance in the economy. I am pleased to say that the roles of the Labour and Conservative parties seem to have been reversed and that it is now the Conservative party that is making such mistakes, which I welcome. It is vital that we get things right in this Parliament, just as it was in the previous one.
    Three delightful incidents during the election campaign stand out in my mind. One was when I walked across an estate where many youngsters had been unemployed and a couple of young black kids gave me the thumbs up. I asked them what the Labour Government had done for them and they replied without any prompting, "It's that welfare to work; we've got jobs now and they're permanent." That made me feel good.
    The second incident involved a pensioner who had previously received about £65 a week in income support—about 500,000 pensioners did not receive any pension at all because for one reason or other they had not paid into systems—but who now receives £92 a week.
    206
    Again, I felt positive. The third incident was of a woman saying to me that she had benefited not only from the welfare to work scheme but from the working families tax credit, and that that had made her more than £20 a week better off. That is why I am in politics, why I was so pleased that we won a second term and why I have no problem saying that we delivered during our first term.
    We still have a lot more to do. For the best part of a century, this country has under-invested in its public services, for which we have paid an awful price. That is why I find it difficult to take all the Conservative party's criticisms of public services. Everything that it did during the 18 years in which I sat in opposition was designed not only to undermine the morale and confidence of the public sector but to cut investment in it.
    There are a number of areas in which delivery will take a long time. The most notable one is probably transport. It will be extremely difficult to get transport right quickly. The recent high-speed rail link between Calais and Marseilles took the French 12 years to build. When one thinks that we have not even delivered a high-speed rail link to the channel tunnel yet, one realises how much further we must go before we can compare our public services with the more advanced services in many other European nations.
    Similarly, I have no doubt that we have much further to go in the national health service, because that is about not just money but management. That brings me to the first of the problem areas of delivery about which I want to speak. I have no problem with bringing in the private sector—subject to certain conditions. It can be very useful in a range of public services. We should not approach the matter from the position that public is good and private is bad, or private is good and public is bad. We should simply ask which can deliver best and in what way. At the end of the day, it is the quality of services received by the people whom we represent that matters. That is what we are after improving.
    There was one particularly important matter that we did not get quite right in the previous Parliament, and I am pleased that it is clearly in our manifesto this time. To deliver good public services, we need a well-paid work force whose morale is good. I emphasise that the work force comprises not only teachers, doctors and nurses but employees throughout the public sector.
    Trade unionists and other public sector workers fear that private sector involvement will in some way lower standards of employment contracts, particularly salaries, hours, holidays, safeguards and so on, and that therefore they will lose out. That has happened in the past. Indeed, it was a major failing of the Conservative party when it was in government. It simply used privatisation or the introduction of private services to undercut the work force. It is not surprising, therefore, that the public sector work force was demoralised and run down over many years.
    We must turn that around. That must be a priority for us, whether in the public or the private sectors, for employees at all levels in the health service, education, transport or housing. There is much room for improvement in housing, such as in the willingness of tenants to transfer to housing associations or other companies. All that must be predicated on an improved outcome for those who receive the service and a proper standard of employment and payment for the work force.

    207
    That brings me to the second area that I want to mention, which is by far the biggest problem facing us in the public sector: the long-term problem of the work of local government.
    I think that all Labour Members—and, I hope, other hon. Members—realise the importance not only of the structure of local government but of councillors. We would do well to keep in mind one of the lessons that I learned in the 1980s when the Conservative party began to lose its councillors in droves. I remember that a group of about 18 Conservative councillors in west Oxfordshire stood down because of the then Government's policies on local authorities. That is an awful warning with regard to ensuring that our councillors have the ability to do the job and deliver the services that they want to provide for their people. Above all, recognition must be given to the jobs that they do and they must have a structure that enables them to provide funding themselves and to answer to the electorate.
    Significant issues are involved in giving local councils more control, with the acceptance that that involves the responsibility to answer for the use of the money. If we get that right, we can revitalise local government in this country. Local government has always been one of the bedrocks of our democracy. Indeed, it was local government that led the industrial and public sector revolutions in the 19th century. It was local council members and mayors in cities who delivered the structure that made the industrial revolution work and that improved cleanliness, public health and a range of other concerns. We must return to that basis. I have long been a convert to the idea of regional government, on which I want us to proceed as fast as possible, but I also want us to revitalise and improve local government by giving more powers to local councillors and ensuring that they have the ability to raise the funding that is necessary for them to deliver.
    I can think of few better examples of where we have still not got that right than housing benefit. When the Conservatives introduced the housing benefit system, it seemed almost designed to fail. I acknowledge, however, that it is also incredibly difficult to reform. If the housing benefit system throughout the country were to undergo a reform that worked in London, it would cost an arm and a leg. On the other hand, if a system were introduced in London that was predicated on what was done elsewhere, nobody would be able to afford to live in London. We have enough problems already in the London area in respect of lack of affordable housing, whether it be for teachers, nurses or other essential workers. I acknowledge that those difficulties are enormous in terms of the reform of local government. local government finance and housing benefit, but I point out that the way in which they knit together is profoundly important for the future of this country.
    I should like to say a quick word about crime, as I have always felt that we still need to do more to support victims. I am thinking not so much about money as about the support that we give the victims of violence. I could not help but notice, as I think all of us have, the dreadful agony suffered by the Bulger family and how they coped with it. In a recent case in Norway, the family dealt with their experience very differently and did not have the same desire for vengeance. When one considers the way
    208
    in which the family were treated, one appreciates that they were dealt with much more sympathetically and were given much more help.
    As is fairly typical of the treatment of the families of victims of extreme violence in this country, the Bulger family were given little help in coping with their feelings. How on earth a person ever would cope with such feelings is beyond me, but practice in other European countries is ahead of what happens here. For example, I do not think that, in those countries, there would be any of the dreadful newspaper-driven attempts that have been made to expose the two children who committed the murder in the belief that pursuing them throughout their lives will improve the quality of life for them, society or the Bulger family. More help for victims, other than of a financial type, would be very useful.
    I was delighted to hear my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary speak about the need to deal with the asylum issue, partly by recognising that the core of the problem is that this country does not have a proper immigration policy. One of the reasons why the problem has been so difficult to deal with is that, as we know in areas such as mine, many people who claim asylum are immigrants who wanted to emigrate to Britain for work. In a part of Ealing that is situated in my constituency, it is almost impossible to argue otherwise, as about the third biggest group of asylum seekers is from Poland. It is difficult to argue that people from that country are fleeing in fear of their lives; they migrate to get work. The problem is that we do not have a proper immigration system that would enable us to separate the people who are fleeing extreme violence and to give them the help and support that they need. I hope that we can make progress on that.
    I do not wish to delay the House much longer. I know that it is not the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills to ensure that a foxhunting Bill is reintroduced, for which she is probably grateful, but we must ensure that that happens. It is a matter of trust. As long as there is a free vote on the various options in such a Bill, people will be satisfied, but it would be a serious mistake not to introduce a similar Bill to that which was considered before the election.
    Finally, I want to speak about the reform of Parliament. I listened with great care to the comments made yesterday by the Leader of the Opposition. For the first time, I heard him make some very positive remarks. He will not be in his job for very much longer, but if those remarks were a genuine reflection of Tory party thinking, they are very welcome. We introduced a lot of reforms in the previous Parliament under my right hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Ann Taylor), who is sitting to my left, and her successor, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. One of the biggest changes was the attempt to programme legislation so that it could receive proper, in-depth and detailed consideration, instead of being the subject of time-wasting speeches. The reform fell down largely, but not entirely, because the Opposition wanted to use programme motion debating time as another way of wasting time and keeping us here late into the night. That will stop in the next week or two because of the way in which we will address these issues in the near future.
    The Leader of the Opposition spoke yesterday about the need to reform Parliament. Let me make an appeal to the Conservative party: ultimately, all major parties go into opposition and into government, and it is in nobody's

    209
    interests to work in a system in which we score points off each other but do not give legislation the detailed examination that it deserves. One of the factors that produced voter apathy in the election was the feeling that the House had not reformed itself enough. That was not the biggest factor, but it was important. As we often call for other reforms of the public sector, we should sometimes pay a little more attention to ourselves. That is why I believe that we must take the matter forward.
    David Davis: The hon. Gentleman said that we should not try to score points off each other, but I should like to give a single example in relation to which his remarks about the guillotine or timetable system being driven by timewasting are incorrect. During consideration of the Bill that became the Football (Disorder) Act 2000, a serious human rights issue arose: the circumstances in which passports should be taken away on the basis of suspicion. Timetabling meant that it was impossible to amend the Bill in that crucial respect. Many of the hon. Members who were present, including a former Attorney-general, wanted to introduce a constructive amendment, but it was impossible for them to do so. The way in which timetabling is currently run prevents the House from exercising its proper right and duty as a defender of civil liberties.
    Mr. Soley: I am not arguing that we got everything right. The circumstances that the right hon. Gentleman describes arose partly because of other things that had been happening at about that time. I say to him that we attempted to allow control of time by the Opposition and Back Benchers in general. I acknowledge that we have not yet got that right, but that is what can be achieved. It will happen only if the Opposition are fully involved. The quid pro quo for the Government getting their legislation on time—that has always been achieved through use of the guillotine, whether by the previous or current Governments—is that Opposition parties and Back Benchers have control of the timing of debates and can prevent Governments from kicking the difficult bits into the early hours of the morning, or whatever else.
    Mr. James Clappison: The hon. Gentleman suggests that we have not had enough modernisation. Have not there been four years of modernisation followed by a very low turnout in a general election? How does he explain the fact that 20 years ago, when by present standards the House was thoroughly unmodernised and had all-night sittings and all the features that he has described, voter turnouts in general elections and, arguably, interest in politics and this place were much higher?
    Mr. Soley: I could give the hon. Gentleman a range of answers. I have said for some years that the House was most successful in the 19th century and early 20th century. After that, it did not change. We did not change the constitution or the practices of the House. For many reasons, those practices became increasingly out of kilter with normal thinking and behaviour. If he believes that the public like the idea of his sitting up all night debating nothing in particular when most legislation is passed without scrutiny, he is not listening to them. I am considering not other aspects of hon. Members' work, but our effectiveness in examining Bills.
    210
    If we are to improve our effectiveness, we must do much more to modernise. There is an opportunity for the parties to come together. If the Government got anything wrong about the modernisation process, it was our attempt to work with other parties and get them on board. The phrase "got wrong" is perhaps inappropriate, because we should not have done otherwise. However, the process was consequently much slower than I would have liked and some aspects did not work. If Conservative Members will not come on board, we must modernise the House without their co-operation. That is undesirable.
    We can consider a range of issues together, such as the operation of Select Committees and the Chamber. We could produce many more draft Bills. The media also have a role to play. The draft Bill procedure was described in The Guardian yesterday as a way of putting matters on hold, whereas it is an opportunity for people inside and outside the House, and those who are affected by legislation, to consider and comment on it in draft so that it can be put into better shape.
    A range of achievements is possible, but the House must have the will to make them. It is not a matter for us, but the House of Lords desperately needs to reform itself. We can help to reform the way in which people reach the other place, but one or two incidents that people witnessed there yesterday may make them wish to reconsider structures in the House of Lords.
    On several occasions, I have said that we need to reconsider the oath. There are many republicans here. I remember the late Willie Hamilton, who swore allegiance to the Queen but then denounced her and all her works. An oath to Parliament and democracy might be a better way forward. Hon. Members would be free to take the oath to the Queen and Parliament if they wished.
    David Davis: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman for intervening on him twice. There is a genuine problem at the core of the timetabling system. The hon. Gentleman talks about the involvement of Opposition Front Benchers and Back Benchers in the process, but timetabling is a deal between Front Benchers. Independent Back Benchers are often the strongest defenders of liberties in the House. They do not have sufficient influence over decisions about crucial individual clauses that they want to debate at length.
    Mr. Soley: I do not believe that we have got everything right. There is room for movement and we have to reconsider some matters. However, everyone loses patience with the approach of, "Let's keep discussing the programme motion for another three quarters of an hour because we can do that" for the fun of it. If that is the name of the game, we must simply plough ahead with modernisation.
    I have spoken primarily about public services. It would be easier to convince the public of the need to reform public services if we reformed ourselves.
    2.54 pm
    Dr. Evan Harris: I congratulate the Secretary of State for Education and Skills on a well deserved promotion. Plenty of such elevations are neither promotions nor well deserved, but that is not true of her. I also congratulate the Minister of State, Department of Health on her well deserved promotion.

    211
    Both Ministers are in important "delivery" Departments, and I expect that they may find the Parliament hard going. Again, the Government will be unable to meet the electorate's expectations. They will find themselves defending the indefensible, supporting the unsupportable and trying to justify the unjustifiable. Some contributions from Labour Members today have displayed a little of that.
    I want to focus on four main themes. First, I want to examine the evidence on which Government policy on public services will or will not be based. Secondly, I want to consider whether the policies are planned or haphazard. Do they constitute arrival at a destination by a series of initiatives and gimmicks rather than by a clear plan? Thirdly, I wish to discuss whether the Government's approach is honest from the outset, not only towards the electorate and the staff who work in the public services, but towards Labour Back Benchers, who will ask questions about the Government's direction. Staff, the electorate and hon. Members—even Labour Members—deserve an honest account of their aims. Fourthly, I want to examine whether their proposed policies are well considered in the wider context of society.
    I shall not detain the House for too long on those themes because many hon. Members wish to speak, including new Members. I hope that my hon. Friends the Members for Chesterfield (Paul Holmes) and for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke) will catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker. They bring a wealth of experience to the Liberal Democrat Benches and to the House.
    On the issue of evidence, what evaluation have the Government made of the virtues of more private sector involvement in public services? What academic evaluations can the Government cite to show that the private finance initiative in the health service has been a success in providing value for money and in achieving their objectives? Such academic work has been undertaken in a series of articles in the British Medical Journal by the professor of public policy and her department at the university of London. She presents clear evidence and conclusions to show that the Government's implementation of the private finance initiative has been and will be a disaster. Instead of commissioning or citing more research, the Government have responded by attacking the researchers' credentials.
    Perhaps Private Eye is the Government's journal of record since they do not respect the British Medical Journal. Private Eye states that, when the Secretary of State for Health appeared on "Channel Four News" during the election campaign, and
    "Jon Snow dared to suggest that building hospitals and schools by PFI was 'mortgaging our children's future', Milburn exploded in fury, denouncing Snow for accepting at face value the view of `third-rate, leftish academics'."
    I suspect that all three of those words were meant as an insult. Instead of trying to abuse and denigrate researchers, the Government should commission or cite research that shows that PFI works.
    The Government should take account of good, pee-reviewed research papers. Their idea of peer review is getting Lord Falconer and Baroness Jay to cast their eye over a press release.
    Mr. Simon Thomas: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there was a gap in the speech of the Secretary of State for Education and Skills? She did not explain what the private sector would get out of PFI or privatised health And education services. At least Conservative Front-Bench Members are plain about the matter; their answer is profit. What is the advantage of the Government's policies to the private sector? Is not it also profit from the public purse?
    Dr. Harris: The Government must not only show evidence that the proposal can work, but explain clearly what the price will be. If it means public sector funds going to shareholders in well padded companies, or another Railtrack—this time for the NHS—the Government should make it clear that that is the case or explain what lessons are going to be learned from previous privatisations. I fear that those lessons will not have been learned.
    In higher education, there is good evidence of the effect of the Government's policies.
    Dr. Fox rose—
    Mr. Graham Brady rose—
    Dr. Harris: I shall give way in a moment.
    The then Department for Education and Employment funded South Bank university to carry out research into higher education, which found that
    "most full-time students, however, did think that their friends might have decided against university because of the changes in student funding and finances. 61 per cent. of full-time students agreed with the statement that 'Changes to student funding have deterred some of my friends from coming to university'. The proportion of students agreeing with the statement was highest among students from social classes IV and V…black students …and women aged 25"—
    who are—
    "the very focus of widening participation strategies."
    There has not yet been a Government response to their own commissioned research in that area.
    The then Select Committee on Education and Employment, with its majority of able but loyal Labour Back Benchers, joined in, too. It stated:
    "We recommend that the Government should tackle the consequences of student poverty for retention by improving access to financial support for less well-off students, raising very substantially the income threshold at which graduates have to begin repayment and addressing concerns about debt escalation."
    Nothing in the Government response sought to tackle those concerns. We have academic evidence and a review from a Select Committee, but the Government still do nothing.
    Dr. Fox: May I take the hon. Gentleman back to private finance initiatives? Is it not simplistic either to reject PFI out of hand or to pretend that PFI is in itself a generic solution? Surely the success or otherwise of any PFI project will be determined by the quality of the contract that has been negotiated. Is not the real worry over recent PFI contracts, particularly in the health service, the rate of return being given to get projects off the ground quickly to suit political timetables?
    Dr. Harris: If one accepts PFI, clearly the quality of the contract will be important. The Deputy Prime Minister

    213
    was asked about that on Radio 4 yesterday and I have to say that, even having read the transcript, I do not know what he was trying to say. Even with a translation it was unclear.
    I remember that, during the passage of the National Health Service (Private Finance) Act 1997, there was huge competition between the new Labour Front Bench and the then Conservative Front Bench as to who had invented the idea of PH, amid claims that whoever had done so must be right. If the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) considers those debates, he will regret the enthusiasm with which his party. as well as the Government, decided that PFI was the only way.
    David Davis: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Dr. Harris: No, I want to make progress on schools. If the right hon. Gentleman seeks to intervene at another time, it might be appropriate.
    On the proposals in the Green Paper on schools, will the Minister tell us what empirical evidence there is to back up the idea that they constitute improvements? A study by Professor Gorard from the Cardiff university school of social sciences was published recently—perhaps even today. I hope that my quoting his academic research in aid of my argument will not lead to his being disparaged by the Government. He says in his abstract:
    "The specialist schools programme is seen as a key way of transforming the 'bog standard' comprehensive education system. This has been portrayed as meeting the local needs of parents. However, there is little evidence that such a programme can make such an impact …In particular, it is shown, schools that have control of their own admission arrangements will benefit the most and lead to the creation of a two-tier education system".
    He goes on:
    "Our study has suggested that schools that are selective, or are their own admissions authorities, or are specialist tend to increase the socio-economic segregation of school intakes … When schools have two or more of these characteristics together—foundation specialist or selective specialist for example—this tendency is far stronger…Simply allowing more schools to become specialist. and perhaps allocate a proportion of their places to students on the basis of that specialism, cannot bring such changes about."
    By that, he means improvements. He continues:
    "Rather. specialisation could lead to several clear disadvantages without any obvious compensation for most families."
    Will the Minister and her colleagues examine the available research and accept that their policy should be evidence-based, rather than simply put out for political reasons?
    In terms of ensuring that the Government make plans, parents and their children want to know where this is all going to end. They want to know whether the gimmick-based, initiative-led reforms to our school system are going to mean the end of the comprehensive school. They also want to know how a selection system that could increase at any time beyond the Government's control, although only 7 per cent. of schools choose to select at the moment, is going to lead to more choice for parents.
    When schools select, it is parents and their children who are selected against. If specialist schools select on the basis of ability, as they are effectively being invited to do, and if faith schools select on the basis of the faith—or the presumed or alleged faith—of the child's parents, a pool of students will be selected against. If more
    214
    resources are given to schools that have the freedom to select, the children who most need additional teachers will be left in schools without the resources and without the kudos to be able to select and recruit the teachers who are needed. That will not benefit the students who most need help.
    On the Government's proposed reforms of the health care system, they seem to have decided that health authorities are going to be abolished without any planning or forethought as to where the public health function is going to rest. It is critical that public health is thought about at a local level, and that it does not all come out by diktat from the Department of Health.
    There is no way in which the broad range of public health specialisms—for example, in environmental health, partnership building with local authorities, communicable disease control, health promotion and advice to commissioners—most of which are carried out by separate specialist public health consultants at health authority level, can possibly be delivered by a single public health consultant or trainee at primary care trust level. According to the Public Health Alliance, it is not yet clear what is going to happen to the public health function, which is possibly the most important function of health authorities—in value-added terms—in relation to health and quality of life.
    In higher education, there has been an underfunded over-expansion of places, to the extent that when the clawback occurs for the universities that cannot fill their places, departments and campuses are closing. In NHS recruitment, the Government staged the nurses pay award in their first year in office in 1997, then fretted and wondered why so many nurses were leaving the health service.
    The Government failed to plan early, in that they waited three years before expanding the number of places in medical schools—training places that were desperately needed and should have been filled at least three years earlier. The Conservatives were certainly complacent about our work force planning needs when they were in power. However, to delay for three years before starting to train the new doctors and nurses that we need for the future was a disaster of planning that will come back to haunt the Government.
    Why do the Government claim that for schools to be diverse, they need to have different titles? We do not need a new structure for schools to offer different things. They do not need a specialism to be special. It is wrong that schools can buy higher quality with extra funding given to them only if they opt for one of these initiative-driven proposals.
    A further question is, are the Government being honest? The Secretary of State's predecessor said clearly before the 1997 general election:
    "Watch my lips. No selection by interview or examination under a Labour Government."
    We have had no clear renunciation of that from the Labour party in words, only in actions. That is why there is great suspicion about the Government's real intentions with regard to the private sector. They do the opposite of what they say that they will do, they do not deliver what they say that they will deliver, and they develop policies that, before an election, they deny that they are going to develop—selection is one example.

    215
    If the Government cannot be honest with the electorate and with the House, at least they could be honest with their own party. However, nowhere in the education section of the briefing to Labour Members alluded to in yesterday's debate on the Queen's Speech does it mention the extent to which there will be freedom to engage the private sector in the delivery of services. There are five main bullet points and it simply is not referred to. Yes, the Secretary of State developed the point today, but she would not take interventions, so we are left dangling to consider the idea, which is tantalising for some, perhaps, that there might be extensive freedom for the private sector to be involved.
    On free schools, I wonder whether the Conservatives won the election. They did not deserve to win it and the electorate did not give them that victory, but it appears to me that the drive to free schools, an admissions free-for-all and freedom to employ the private sector, despite there being no evidential backing for that, show that Ministers are delivering to the Conservatives an election victory on education that is most undeserved, unplanned and lacking in an evidential base.
    The Government talk, semi-honestly, of there being more teachers. Of course there are more teachers, but there are more children. If we are to examine the figures sensibly, it is the ratio that counts. Simply saying that there are more teachers does not address whether quality is improving if class sizes are rising.
    Mr. John Bercow: The hon. Gentleman takes a profoundly parochial and complacent view of this country's educational attainments. In that respect, he is similar to Ministers. What does he think that we in Britain can learn from the educational practice of Germany, France, Japan and New Zealand?
    Dr. Harris: If there are lessons to learn, they are the ones that I am talking about: education policy should be evidence-based and planned for the long term; the electorate and Members of the legislature should know what they are entering into when proposals are first flagged; and the wider context should be considered when education policy is being delivered.
    All hon. Members are concerned about what is happening in Oldham and what happened there in the run-up to the general election. I am happy to be corrected if I am wrong, but I understand that Oldham, which is a diverse community, has two Church of England secondary schools and that not one Muslim child attends either of them. The development of too great a freedom for individual schools over admissions policy, based on the religion or purported religion of parents, can lead to social segregation. I would like to know what the Minister will do to avoid such a situation as the freedom of schools to select on such lines expands.
    On the NHS, we must consider policy in terms of the context. Regardless of who is to blame for staff shortages, although I would blame both Conservative and Labour Governments, it cannot be right or sensible to give NHS funding to private sector organisations in a blasé fashion to enable them to carry out work when that will lead to them recruiting from the NHS, which is the only source of staff. The Minister will accept that there are no pools
    216
    of unemployed nurses and doctors out there waiting to work, and providing such funding to the private sector will cause a greater reduction in capacity in the NHS and so more reliance on the private sector. A vicious circle will be created.
    In the context of staff shortages in almost every health profession, have the Government, in their short-term desperation to meet false and counter-productive targets, given any thought to the effect on the NHS of giving taxpayers' money to the private sector to cream off staff in whose training it has not invested? There is no level playing field. The NHS, our universities and the public sector invest in training staff, but those staff might work in the private sector thanks to taxpayers' money—sometimes for the NHS, but, in the main, for people who can afford to go private rather than the poor with the greatest health needs, who are most reliant on the NHS. That requires the Government to explain whether they are thinking about the issue.
    The Government entered the general election campaign making incompatible pledges: dramatically to improve public services, but not to increase fair taxation on those who can afford to pay for the investment in public services. Indeed. we know that the Government will raise tax, but they will do so stealthily, indirectly and unfairly. It is so sad that the only tax that they have ruled out increasing is the fair tax on those who are better off. I do not believe that the Government, without significantly increased investment, will be able to deliver what is needed to improve our public services.
    The Government can no longer hide behind the Conservatives. In the previous Parliament, the Labour party spent a long time presenting the legacy of the previous Government as an excuse for every failure. Certainly, the Conservatives had an appalling record, but for the past two weeks the Government will have found that blaming "the legacy of the previous Government" has been truer than they can believe. On the delivery of public services, the Government can run for dishonest and unplanned options that have no evidential base, but they will not be able to hide.
    3.15 pm
    Mr. Michael Clapham: First, I offer my congratulations to the new Secretary of State and, indeed, to all her team. I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris), who made a number of interesting points. Some I agree with; others, I dispute.
    I want to consider the Gracious Speech through the experiences of my constituency and the changes that have affected it and Barnsley as a whole since 1997. I also want to make a point about Labour's victory, which should be put to Opposition Members: the electorate rejected the individualism of the Thatcher years, and one can see that individuality has replaced individualism. That individuality, which is a far cry from individualism, became embedded over the second half of the previous century.
    In the four years that Labour has been in power, it has done much to pronounce that value of individuality. Individuality, as opposed to individualism, is the way to ensure that we create the conditions to enable everyone to fulfil their potential. Individualism has held that aim back. Labour's election victory was built around the idea of individuality—creating the conditions in which people are able to fulfil their aspirations—and the Secretary of State made her points creatively when she addressed the House.

    217
    It is right to emphasise education, as well as health and crime, in the Queen's Speech. Education in my constituency has improved dramatically over the past four years. For example, before 1997 and in the last year in which the Tory party was in power, some schools in my constituency had bucket monitors. When it started to rain, named children fetched a bucket and put it under the leak in the roof. However, within a few months of Labour being elected, we had our first new school for 20 years and major refurbishments, which have altered the situation dramatically, were carried out across my constituency and across Barnsley.
    We should consider the national figures. In 1996–97, which was the last year of the Tory Government, about £670 million was spent on refurbishing school buildings. Over the past year, this Government have spent more than £2 billion on refurbishing school buildings, and my constituency has benefited from that.
    When a building is pleasing to children, it encourages and is conducive to their learning, and some of the results in primary schools in my constituency and across Barnsley show that the refurbishment programme and the hard work of teachers carried out within local education authority guidance have achieved increased standards. For example, in the last year of the Tory Government, only 55 per cent. of children aged 11 were reaching the required standard in reading and writing. In the past four years, there has been a 25 per cent. increase in that figure. Last year, almost 70 per cent. of children aged 11 were reaching the required standard in reading, writing and mathematics. Those standards have been achieved because this Government have put the necessary resources into schools and supported the hard work of teachers.
    I visit the primary schools in my constituency regularly. Only last Friday, at the request of the pupils of St. John's junior school in Penistone, I opened their new computer suite. I saw the excitement on the faces of the children using the new computers under the guidance of a well-trained teacher. On some visits to my schools, I have found that eight-year-old children using the computer systems have been answering a question that was on the GCSE paper only two years ago. Thus my primary schools have benefited handsomely from a Labour Government being in power.
    In 1997, my local authority collected statistics demonstrating Barnsley's deprived position. They showed that we needed to create 19,000 jobs by 2001 just to lift us up to the national employment average. The same survey showed that the average income on council estates across Barnsley was between only £5,000 and £6,000 a year, which gives hon. Members an idea of how deprived the area was.
    That deprivation, caused largely by the economic dislocation imposed on the area by an indifferent Tory Government, left us with a legacy that had to be picked up. The challenge has been accepted by the Government and we are now seeing the improvements in education to which I have referred. Those improvements are important for Barnsley's regeneration. It is realised that if we are to attract industry into Barnsley, we must have a much better education system and be able to provide industry with the skills that are required.
    It would appear that, within the regeneration programme, industry is responding. We have already created between 8,000 and 9,000 jobs. Although we still
    218
    have a long way to go before achieving the 19,000 jobs that are required, it is fair to say that, as a result of the Government's economic programme, we can see the light at the end of the tunnel—although it is a long tunnel.
    We have been discussing how the education culture is changing, and I referred to the way in which the changed values in society impacted during the election. Clearly, the perceived value of the education system relates to individuality. In that regard, I share the view of the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon when he spoke about the change to faith schools and selection.
    There is much to be gained from creating the conditions necessary to pursue individuality. Much of the gain could be lost if we were to revert to selection and specialisation in some of our schools. If we did that, we would risk creating a two-tier system, so we must be very cautious. I urge the Secretary of State to look carefully at the matter before making those changes, because all that we have gained in creating the conditions for individuality could be lost if we were to make the wrong move in developing the secondary sector.
    The issue of health is also enormously important to my constituency and to Barnsley generally. The 1997 survey to which I referred also looked at the health problems across Barnsley and my constituency. It identified the fact that 30 per cent. of households—nearly a third—have a disabled person. Much of that disability results from Barnsley's heavy industrial base in coal mining and steel, and many of those being cared for suffer from respiratory diseases as a result of coal mining.
    I thank the Government for much of the work that they have done, particularly in setting up a system of payment for former miners suffering from respiratory diseases and a scheme that pays compensation to miners suffering from vibration white finger. The Coalfields Regeneration Trust is also helping to rebuild our communities. In the days of economic dislocation, Barnsley's communities started to unravel and they needed to be rebuilt. That is beginning to happen with the help of the coalfield regeneration fund.
    Given Barnsley's high rate of heart disease and strokes, much can be gained from having a health service that can provide for the community's needs. South Yorkshire's health action zone works with the local health authority. However, because the health authority started from a very low base, the percentage increases have not been sufficient to provide the resources needed to tackle Barnsley's health problems. That needs to be looked at. Although a lot of work has been done within the health action zone, in health as in education there are dangers in involving the private sector. It all comes down to a question of ethics: the ethic of individuality as opposed to that of individualism; providing a service for need as opposed to one for profit. We must look carefully before extending the private sector into health service provision.
    I have referred to the crime scene and I welcome the reference in the Gracious Speech to a new police Bill, particularly the setting up of a criminal assets recovery unit. I chair Barnsley's community safety partnership which, as some Members will recall, was set up under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. Barnsley ran a community safety project from 1995. As a result of much of the work that we did in the town, it was taken as a template for many of the projects introduced via the 1998 Act. It has

    219
    worked, bringing the police together with the local authority and with voluntary bodies. It has enabled us to assess our problems and target help on them.
    However, Barnsley has a drugs problem. The drugs action team reports that every 41st person in Barnsley regularly takes heroin. We have a population of some 237,000 people, which means that 6,000 people regularly take heroin. That is the source of crime in my area: 70 per cent. of crime in my constituency and across Barnsley is drugs-driven.
    We must reconsider the strategy. The drugs tsar set out the three planks of his strategy: education, treatment and stifling supply on the streets. We have had some success, but stifling supply on the streets is enormously difficult. The decision of the police in London to concentrate their resources on hard rather than on soft drugs is a step forward. The problem in Barnsley is heroin, which is becoming a drug of first use. We must concentrate our resources to ensure that we tackle the problem of hard drugs.
    I want to refer to the health and safety aspect of the Queen's Speech. The Cullen report will be taken forward in new legislation. It is important that that is done. The railway industry has a poor health and safety record, and it needs to be bettered. In the press today, it is reported that last month 50 trains went through red lights, so there is still an enormous problem, which must be dealt with via legislation.
    Railtrack has failed, so I should like the Government to consider whether to bring the track back into public ownership. I think that there is a case for that. An opinion poll during the general election showed that 90 per cent. of the public are in favour of Railtrack being brought back into public ownership. I urge the Government to sit down with the unions in the rail industry—especially the Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen and the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers—and talk about the issues to work out a strategy for the future. It may be possible for a non-profit-making organisation to run Railtrack. I believe that, given the pronounced problem, strong health and safety legislation is required.
    The Gracious Speech referred to NATO. I sit on the NATO parliamentary assembly and I am concerned about some of the plans for expansion. We must be extremely careful about expanding NATO, and should ensure that it is expanded into some of the former Soviet Union republics only if there is consent and understanding. In March, the civil dimensions of security committee met at the Duma in Moscow to discuss some of Russia's fears regarding the expansion of NATO, which were well founded. Anyone who has followed the son of star wars debate will have read in the press this week about Mr. Putin's meeting with President Bush. The Russians have made it clear that if the anti-ballistic missile treaty were ditched, it would push the world into another arms race. Britain has an important part to play. We should make it clear that there should be a European strategy on son of star wars, rather than different countries taking their own separate initiatives.
    220
    The Queen's Speech offers a great deal. It clearly shows our plans for revitalising public services, which I believe will be achieved in the programme for this Session and for the next three years. I am confident that we can accomplish what we set out in our manifesto.
    3.35 pm
    Sir George Young: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham). The House was pleased to hear of the improvement in the quality of life of his constituents. At the beginning of his speech, he expressed his philosophy on why his party won the general election. I think that the reason was quite simple. I believe that some time ago the country decided to give the Labour party a second term. and there was little that either side could have done about it once that decision was taken.
    I shall make a brief contribution. because I am conscious that many other hon. Members wish to speak. I shall say a word about health, a word about education, and then I shall pick up on the comments made by the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush (Mr. Soley) about Parliament.
    If health and education are to be two of the themes for this Session, it is odd that the Bill banning tobacco advertising is out and the Bill banning hunting is in. The hunting Bill is hardly central to the delivery of better public services, and it is totally irrelevant to the needs of rural areas, which are trying to recover from the worst crisis in 50 years. Some of my colleagues may have had reservations about the tobacco advertising and promotion Bill, but I agree with the Chairman of the Select Committee on Health, who said on the "Today" programme this morning that it was the single most effective public health measure. Advertising validates and reinforces an activity that kills more than 100,000 people a year, and I hope that it will not be too long before time is found for that Bill.
    Turning to other health issues with a political flavour, what happened in Wyre Forest is a lesson to all of us—the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Dr. Taylor) may catch your eye later on, Mr. Speaker. It showed the high price paid if an MP fails to get on top of a sensitive local issue and ceases to be the buckle between Parliament and people. It also shows the anti-politician mood that is out there, which has led to an appetite for voting for the non-politician who is campaigning on a single issue. I predict that there will be a lot more of that next time round, and we all need to be on our toes.
    On the Government's wish to confront vested interests in health and education, they seem to have got off to a bad start. They have driven to the verge of industrial action the least militant group of public servants in the country: the general practitioners. I hope that Health Ministers will urgently build bridges with GPs, who run the most cost-effective and most popular part of the NHS.
    There are a number of reasons why GPs' patience is running out: the increase in paperwork; the ever-expanding work load; shorter consultation times; endless reform; and more litigation. It is a sobering thought that the cost of outstanding legal claims against the NHS is a third of its annual budget. There is a more general point to be made on a separate occasion about our becoming a more litigious society and the injury that does to our fellow citizens, who, in effect, have to pay for it.

    221
    Failure to get on top of the waiting list problem has also created difficulties for GPs, who have to manage patients who are not getting the service that they expect.
    Yesterday, I received a letter from a constituent who underwent breast cancer surgery in February. In fairness to the NHS, she said:
    "I cannot speak too highly about the care I have been given thus far."
    In May, she was told by her oncologist that she would need radiotherapy, and that it would probably start in July. More recently, because of the waiting list, the approaching holiday period and the shortage of staff to work the machinery, she was told that she will still be waiting to hear about her appointment in August. That shows the challenge on delivery that the Government face.
    Mr. Andrew Miller: Which of the professions to which the right hon. Gentleman has just referred have a training period that is shorter than the length of the last Administration?
    Sir George Young: My point was made in a spirit of amiable consensus. The Government must confront this challenge because they have raised expectations. My constituent's expectations were raised, and she is disappointed that, having had the surgery, she is having to wait an indefinite period for the radiotherapy.
    That leads me to the issue of resources, which I have previously raised with Ministers. They regard Hampshire as a county so healthy that we get just. over £80 per capita for every £100 that the rest of the country receives. The Government's own independent assessors say that they can find no justification for that figure, and until we get realistic resources to deliver the services that people expect, the Government will struggle to convince my constituents that the NHS is improving. In Andover, we have a popular local hospital. Substantial investment is needed to bring it up to date, and to cope with the requirements of an expanding town; yet a document published recently by the health authority suggested the making of economies, rather than investment in the building. That is another good example of the challenge that confronts the Government on delivery.
    The issue of resources leads me to my next point, which concerns social services. It does not make sense to pump money into the national health service and then starve social services; that leads to blocked beds and to extra admissions to hospital, because care in the community breaks down. The Government recognised that last year, when they found some welcome emergency funds in the winter to deal with bed-blocking, but. such moves are not a lasting solution in Hampshire. We are spending over standard spending assessment on social services, but the county cannot pay enough to nursing and residential care homes, so they are closing. That simply is not joined-up government.
    On health, the question arises of partnership with the private sector. If the Government want to pick a fight with the public sector trade unions, so be it, but an easier way of re-engaging the private sector would be to revisit the role of independent health insurance. The withdrawal of tax relief caused some people to cancel health insurance policies when they retired. That placed an additional burden on the NHS, and reduced the total spent on health.
    222
    I think that the Government should explore with employers and unions the idea of expanding private health insurance—providing it not just for directors and senior staff, but for the entire work force of companies and, indeed, their families. That would help to change the perception of the private sector, and I think the Government would find that the unions were on their side rather than against them.
    Let me say a word about schools, prompted by discussion at the school gate during the election campaign. There is a real problem with recruitment. One school in my constituency is recruiting maths teachers from Bulgaria, and awaiting the issue of work permits. A head teacher in another school has solved the problem by advertising for new teachers before any of his existing teachers have handed in their notice, on the basis that some will leave and he wants first pick—preferring the risk of having too many teachers to that of having too few.
    We need a much better regime for disruptive pupils, who seem to be getting younger and younger. Simply excluding them is not the answer. I suspect that I am not alone in finding that more and more of my constituency case load is devoted to finding an appropriate regime for excluded children.
    Let me respond to the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush by saying a word about Parliament. Low voter turnout and the marginalisation of Parliament are two sides of the same coin. Last week I heard the word "humility"—from, I think, the Prime Minister. Nowhere is humility needed more than in the Government's dealings with Parliament, but I have to say that very little was visible in the last Parliament.
    We have seen the Liaison Committee's report "Shifting the Balance", and the Norton commission's report on strengthening Parliament. This week, the Hansard Society published a report on the same theme. I want to make three brief suggestions. The first relates to Prime Minister's Question Time, which I think should be restructured to allow a sustained line of questioning on a particular theme. Of 179 Members, 128 believe that it is not currently an effective means of securing information or explanation from the Government—and I believe that the present cabaret is partly responsible for the fact that people feel remote and disengaged from Parliament.
    Secondly, I think it wrong for the Leader of the House to chair the Select Committee on the Modernisation of the House of Commons. The Leader of the House is the Government's business manager: it is his or her job to get the legislative programme through the House. The Select Committee is a Committee of the House of Commons, making recommendations on how the House can hold the Government to account. There could not be a clearer conflict of interests than that caused by making the Leader of the House head of that Committee. The illogicality is demonstrated by the fact that the one Select Committee that never receives a response from the Government is the Modernisation Committee: that shows how close the relationship is.
    The job of the House of Commons is to put a sleeping policeman in front of the legislative juggernaut. If I may pursue the analogy, our job is to get the driver out of the cab, and to ask him where he is going and what he has on board. The risk is that owing to pressure of time we will simply wave him through, sometimes without even slowing him down—hoping that he will be caught speeding in the other place.

    223
    Finally, I hope that we can dispense with the automatic timetabling of every single Bill. That approach is inflexible: the timetable is fixed before we even know how many Government amendments there will be. I hope that the Leader of the House will agree to informal, flexible arrangements, which I believe could work far better.
    The new Leader of the House was described by the Chancellor, on Monday's "Today" programme, as a reforming one. Having listened to him at business questions, I have my doubts. In any event, in the longer term, whether he is or is not a reforming Leader of the House may be more important than any of the Bills mentioned in the Queen's Speech
    3.45 pm
    Mr. Eric Illsley: I, too, congratulate the new members of the Cabinet.
    It is a pleasure to speak in the debate, and I am delighted to be part of a Labour Government who have been returned for a second term. I am also delighted that the Queen's Speech referred to public services. In the few minutes for which I intend to detain the House, I want to refer especially to public services in my constituency, and to some of the problems that we experience in ensuring that they are delivered properly.
    Like many other Labour Members, I campaigned on health, education and law and order, and the response in my constituency was positive. Unfortunately the turnout was low, but 70 per cent. of those who voted voted Labour. That compares with the result in earlier elections. The only way in which public services can be delivered—and were delivered during the last Parliament—is through a strong and stable economy, and I am pleased that the Queen's Speech referred to a continuation of the Government's economic policies.
    The turnout in my constituency was as low as 46 per cent. That is lower than the national average, and caused me considerable concern. In fact, it should concern us all that such a large proportion of my constituents were disengaged from the political process. We have heard one or two reasons for the existence of such voter apathy in today's debate.
    As I have said, 70 per cent. of my constituents who voted voted Labour. I could therefore say that there was considerable contentment with the results of the first four years of Labour government, and that I need not worry, because my constituents are happy with what the Labour Government have done. So low was the turnout, however, that I have no idea what the 55 per cent. or so who did not vote were thinking. They may have been thinking the opposite.
    Mr. Clapham: They certainly were not thinking Conservative.
    Mr. Illsley: I was thrown for a minute then. I was trying to work out the difference between individuality and individualism. However, I fully endorse all that my hon. Friend said, although I did not understand a word of it.
    224
    Although, as I say, it could be said that voters in my constituency and that of my hon. Friend were contented with Labour, the low turnout was a worry. It could well be that a large proportion of my constituents did not vote because they saw no difference between our Government and the last, or did not think that services were being delivered in the way that they wanted. There may have been dissatisfaction with some aspects of our public services, notably in local government. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush (Mr. Soley) about the need to re-engage with local government, particularly councillors, and ensuring that councillors are accountable and are given the tools and the money with which to fulfil their function.
    Public services do not involve just health and education. They involve law and order, street cleansing and social services; they involve the provision of home helps and warden services and, in particular, council housing. All those services are issues in my constituency. Considerable concern was expressed about those issues even among people who supported Labour, who raised that point on the doorstep during our canvassing. There are problems of law and order on certain estates in my constituency. My hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham) mentioned drug dealers and nuisance neighbours. Only a couple of days ago, a case was reported to me involving drug dealers. They have put cameras all around houses to alert them to when the police arrive to try to make an arrest following deliberate disturbances: people are moving in and out of properties all hours of the day and night buying and selling drugs.
    Those people use unlicensed, unregistered, untaxed vehicles. They cause problems for the other people on the street, or on the estate, to the point where those people are frightened to leave their homes, to complain or to do anything—the dealers fire guns and all the rest of it. When approached by the police, they simply say, "You cannot do anything to me. You cannot touch me—I am beyond the law." In effect, they are because the police have considerable difficulty in obtaining prosecutions for that type of nuisance neighbour. Very little can be done about the problem unless some extra resource is given to our police to deal with it.
    In my local authority, we have a new cabinet system of government with area forums. We engaged on a community plan whereby we asked members of the public to state their priorities—to state what they wanted from local and national Government. Instead of the priority being things such as education and employment, it was the environment, particularly cleaning the environment: cleaning up the rubbish, graffiti and environmental damage that have accumulated over the past few years because the "other services" block grant within the local government financial settlement has been squeezed as money has been given to education, social services and other front-line services. The money available for environmental cleaning has been reduced year on year. The public have now said that they would like their priorities to be recognised.
    My local authority has recently had to propose charges on home helps and the warden service. Again, that has not gone down well with elderly constituents in particular, who feel that they contributed throughout their lifetime to national insurance and tax so that such services would be in place.

    225
    My hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone referred to the level of serious illness in the Barnsley area. Only a few days ago, a local newspaper reported that one in three ex-miners suffer from some form of disabling disease. Coupled with the rate of local income that he mentioned, that is a cause of acute concern. Basically, local government services have been cut, while the council tax has increased to cover the shortfall in the local government settlements.
    My constituency has many problems with council housing, which is a major public service, This morning, I had a telephone call from a Minister to tell me that she was visiting Barnsley this afternoon. It is unfortunate that I could not be there to show her some of our problems. Surprisingly, parts of estates are unlettable, which results in houses being boarded up. Therefore, some tenants have the problem of living in between empty, boarded-up houses, which are a magnet for vandalism, criminal damage and all the rest of it.
    The local authority has been left with only one solution to try to deal with that problem: to demolish the council houses. It seems crazy that, in a constituency where up to 3,000 people are waiting for council houses, we are demolishing them. However, it appears to be the only way out. The Government options to deal with that problem are arm's-length companies, stock transfer or the status quo. At present, we are simply subsidising the Treasury by collecting rents, because they are deducted from housing benefit and the minimum repairs allowance, so the money goes back to the Treasury. That means that we cannot afford repairs and capital investment in the housing stock.
    Stock transfer has already been rejected in a vote by tenants of the council estates, so we cannot progress that idea. The Government have said that the use of arm's-length companies will be on offer only to local authorities that are classed as excellent in the management of their housing stock. My local authority is extremely good at managing its housing stock, but it will be precluded from forming an arm's-length company. Therefore, we face a huge problem with council housing.
    Again, that came across loud and clear throughout the election campaign. Basically, council tenants are saying that they would like the council to remain their landlord. The Government should look at the idea of allowing the council to continue in that role. As I said, our council taxes have increased in exchange for poorer and poorer services. That could be one of the reasons for the particularly low turnout in my constituency.
    As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health knows, on a number of occasions I have raised the fact that my health authority is one of the most poorly funded in the Trent region and in the country as a whole. I have mentioned that, although there is a great desire to improve things, we are simply not getting the money at the speed that we would like. At the end of this financial year, my health authority went into the red by a considerable amount. Health authorities are not allowed to show a deficit, so the local health authority had to borrow to balance its books, yet the area has among the highest rates of heart disease, stroke and, in particular, cancer. I say again to my right hon. Friend that we are the lowest funded authority in the Trent region. We hope that he will address that matter, together with some of the other issues that I have raised with him.
    226
    The local authority runs a civic theatre that is being refurbished and, to assist with that, the authority submitted an application for lottery funding. Such applications are decided by the Arts Council. The theatre has been closed for about three years, which means that local operatic and dramatic societies no longer have a base from which to operate. Yet again, because we are Barnsley, our application for lottery money has been turned down.
    It sticks in the craw of Barnsley people, who contribute more than the average to national lottery funding, that we seem to get nothing out of it. It sticks in the craw of Barnsley people when huge amounts of money go to theatres in London, yet our theatre will remain closed until the local authority can find the £3 million funding to refurbish it. I wish that the Government would look again at lottery distribution, so that that funding is distributed more fairly.
    I welcome most of what is in the Queen's Speech, particularly the measures on education. I shall not repeat what has been said about that. The hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) mentioned the importance of further education. Barnsley college will release 120 lecturers on voluntary redundancy at the end of this month as part of cuts that have been forced upon it as a consequence of the shortfall in funding that will occur at the end of July.
    The college has lost income as a result of having to stop franchising courses. The idea of franchising came in under the previous Government with the incorporation of colleges. For some colleges, it was an invitation to go down the wrong route. It has resulted in my college having to repay £5.9 million to the Further Education Funding Council, now the Learning and Skills Council, and having a £2 million shortfall in its annual budget.
    Consequently, as I said, there will be 120 redundancies at Barnsley college at the end of this month, and there will be further compulsory redundancies. The sad fact is that those lecturers will be losing their jobs for reasons such as bad management and franchising that are not their fault. I ask Ministers to consider providing assistance to the college to mitigate the effect of the drastic redundancies that will be made in the next few weeks.
    As I said, a sound economy has been the key to Labour's success. I hope that continued economic success will enable us to continue providing its fruits in the form of better public services to our electorates. I also hope that Ministers will bear in mind my comments when it comes to the debate on the Labour heartlands—areas such as mine—particularly in relation to local government services, and will try to give us a better deal.
    4.1 pm
    Rev. Martin Smyth: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in the debate on the Loyal Address. One of the most gracious acts that I have heard about recently was the posthumous award of the George medal to Eliza Ward, who gave her life trying to protect her boss. Her family, who received the award at Buckingham palace and would not usually be associated with loyalty in some people's eyes, were thrilled with Her Majesty's graciousness, which was reflected in the Gracious Speech.
    I sometimes wonder, however, how much Her Majesty thinks about the meaning of the Queen's Speech. Although I believe that some parts of yesterday's Speech

    227
    are helpful for the country at large, I question other parts of it. As for a Bill to ban tobacco advertising, something seems to be wrong when we are spending money to help people quit nicotine but will not spend similar sums on people with mental health problems. I believe that the Chancellor has been wrong in the way in which he has taxed tobacco, to the detriment of our economy and work force. Nevertheless, recognising the number of people who die from an over-indulgence in tobacco, I am amazed that a tobacco advertising Bill was not mentioned in the Gracious Speech.
    As the Secretary of State for Health will remember, I have previously raised the issue of general practitioner numbers and the reasons why so many of them are leaving the profession. Although Ministers have been talking about increasing GP numbers, I have learned that only about 100 people are in training to become GPs, whereas the Government's own targets show that 400 new GPs are needed across the United Kingdom. I therefore urge Ministers to reconsider the overall issue of GP practice.
    Reform of the health service's management may be needed in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. However, none of us should make the mistake of thinking that current health service managers will not continue to manage the health service if they sidestep into other positions. For years, that fact has been the secret behind all the reforms of the health service's management. It would be helpful if the Government, who have been urged to commission independent researchers to investigate the issue, were given some straight answers. Managers are practitioners of the art of presenting figures to suit themselves, and it is sometimes difficult for Ministers to learn what is really happening.
    I was fascinated by some of the speeches in yesterday's debate, particularly by the comments on Northern Ireland by the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson). I do not know whether it was a confession or a slip of the tongue, but he said:
    please do not let your principles get in the way of your interests."—[Official Report, 20 June 2001; Vol. 370, c. 79.]
    I believe that there are some principles for which we have to stand.
    I pay tribute to the professionals in our public services. As in this place or in any other community of people, there are those who do their work better than others, whereas others will try to avoid work, which is about the only four-letter word that is still taboo. Nevertheless, most people in the professions do a magnificent job in difficult circumstances. Many of them work longer hours than some hon. Members seem to want to work. We should not presume upon those professionals, but provide them with the best back-up possible. They are the ones who teach our children and deal with patients. They are also the ones who do the social work that we leave them with while we criticise them. I pay tribute to them.
    Nevertheless, one has to ask certain questions. I ask some of them now because, as I understand it, responsibility for law and order and security in Northern Ireland still rests with this place. For many years, there have been questions about secure accommodation for young people who need care and protection. At the beginning of this week, we had a conference that was attended by one of the magistrates who has regularly
    228
    returned young people to family care as no secure accommodation was available. Social workers have done their best to care for those young people. and some of the families themselves have requested that those young people be placed in secure accommodation for their own protection, but magistrates have had to return some of those young people to their families.
    Just a week ago, in north Belfast, one of those young people, a young man, fell from a block of flats and died. No one was prepared to understand that he needed special help. From all accounts, another young man, whose grandmother and other family members asked to be taken into protection, is now working for a gentleman who uses him as a rent boy. It is time that our authorities got their act together to provide protection for younger people.
    I should like to address many other issues, but shall finish with a few remarks on regrettable recent events in Northern Ireland, where there were more riots yesterday evening. I wonder whether the British Government and other Governments around the world have begun to understand the message that they are sending to those who no longer want to use the parliamentary process but are prepared to riot, whether it is against capitalism or as happened in Oldham. What messages have we sent to those people by the way we have dealt with law and order in Northern Ireland? In a sense, we have crucified the protectors of the people. Yesterday evening, those protectors were again caught between two groups. As certain groups are not prepared to back the Royal Ulster Constabulary, the Government have continued to go down the wrong road in dealing with the situation.
    I have received a letter from Mr. Michael Sing, from Londonderry, in which he asks me to ask the Prime Minister a certain question on the Floor of the House. Although, as hon. Members know, it is difficult to ask the Prime Minister a question in such circumstances, Mr. Sing's question is fascinating—especially considering how difficult it was for some of us to discover what was happening in the discussions on the framework document. During those discussions, Ulster Unionist Members were not allowed to have any information from our then Conservative Government about the likely course of events. We went to see the then Minister, now the Conservative party chairman, the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), and we were supposed to be told was happening. He was prepared to discuss only the heads of agreement, but was amazed to discover that we knew more about what was in the document than he had realised. We were getting the information from Dublin newspapers. The Dublin Government regularly communicated with Sinn Fein and the SDLP, whereas we in the House were not told, because the agreement was between two sovereign Governments.
    The Belfast agreement is known for purposes of spin as the Good Friday agreement. If it had been signed on 1 April, we would have been quick to call it the April Fools or All Fools agreement. It was signed by two Governments, and I query whether Sinn Fein ever signed it, despite what people say about all the signatories.
    The letter says:
    "As a person who voted in favour and in support of the (Good Friday Agreement). I am considering as to the merits of voting at all!"

    229
    I thought that rather apt in the light of the comment made by the hon. Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley). The letter raises the question whether
    "Washington, London, and Dublin will embark on a sustained and 'Joint' programme at home and abroad to create a situation that will bring about"
    the abandonment of Ireland's neutrality and its accession to NATO, with the price being the separation of Northern Ireland from the United Kingdom.
    I put it to the House that we are responsible for the whole of the Kingdom, be it the Welsh Principality, the Scots nation, the Province of Northern Ireland or the regions of England. The Government must pledge themselves in negotiations with the United States not to listen only to those who are not happy with President Bush's views on defence. It is important to learn from the past. If rogue states have bombed our territory by providing Semtex for terrorism here, the United States must be prepared, if it wants to use our country as a base for its activities, to provide the same protection for our people as for its own. Such protection must be in the legislation dealing with our international relationships, and I hope that the House will take cognisance of that.
    4.12 pm
    Mr. Mark Lazarowicz: It is a great privilege to have the opportunity to make my maiden speech so early in the Session. I am conscious of the honour bestowed on me by my constituents, and I thank them for electing me.
    I pay tribute to my immediate predecessor, Malcolm Chisholm. He was first elected to the House as the Member of Parliament for Leith in 1992 and was re-elected in 1997 for the enlarged constituency of Edinburgh, North and Leith. He served as a Minister in the Scottish Office in 1997. In 1999, he was elected to the Scottish Parliament as a Member for the same constituency, and he quickly gained the respect of people there for his integrity and honesty. I am delighted to say that he was appointed last year as a Deputy Minister for Health and Community Care in the Scottish Executive. In addition to his commitment to the Scottish Parliament and Government, he continues to be an assiduous and hard-working constituency Member. He has given and continues to give me much support as a candidate and, since my election, as a Member of Parliament. He is held in high regard throughout the constituency and I will be well satisfied if I can earn a similar respect there.
    The two parts of my constituency have been represented by a long line of right hon. and hon. Members who made their mark in public life in a variety of ways. In 1992, Malcolm Chisholm took the seat from Ron Brown, who, as some may recall, played from time to time what might be called a colourful role in the House. Before him, Leith's Labour Member was Ronald King Murray, who left the House in 1979 to serve as a judge in the Court of Session and High Court of Justiciary, from which appointment he has recently retired, having fulfilled his judicial duties most ably.
    The Edinburgh, North part of my constituency was for some years represented by the late Sir Alex Fletcher, who I know was held in high esteem across the political spectrum.
    I note that I appear to be the first Leith Member to be not just a Labour Member but a Labour and Co-operative Member. I am proud to be the first to carry the Co-operative as well as the Labour banner.
    230
    As its name indicates, my constituency brings together the port of Leith with part of Edinburgh proper. Indeed, notwithstanding the name "Edinburgh, North", it takes in much of the city centre, starting from Princes street and the New Town and running down to the Firth of Forth. It encompasses many distinctive local communities. Leith and Edinburgh both have a strong sense of community and civic identity, with proud histories.
    Indeed, Edinburgh is one of those places of which it can truly be said that its origins are lost in the mists of time. In my researches for this speech, I was intrigued to discover that one historian in the 16th century suggested that Edinburgh had been founded in 889 BC. I am disappointed to say that modern historians consider that date a millennium or two premature. Nevertheless, Edinburgh has a long history, as does the port of Leith.
    As is often the case with two neighbouring communities, the history of Leith has often been defined in terms of its uneasy relationship with its larger neighbour. For almost 90 years, up to 1920, Leith was independent of Edinburgh. Some of the port's older residents still speak with some resentment of its incorporation into Edinburgh by Parliament in the face of a 5:1 vote against in a referendum of the people of Leith in 1919. Controversy over local government boundaries is not a new phenomenon.
    Notwithstanding their long and varied histories, it is probably the past decade, or even the past five years, that has witnessed the most dramatic changes in Edinburgh and Leith. Leith was traditionally the port of Edinburgh, making much of its living from the sea or from industries indirectly associated with it. Such activity has now declined considerably as a source of employment, although the port is still a major feature of central Leith. A massive redevelopment of the waterfront area is under way and will accelerate over the next few years.
    Edinburgh as a whole is now a city of dynamism and confidence, a state of affairs to which the most significant recent contribution has been the establishment of the Scottish Parliament, helping to make it once again a true European capital city. Moreover, thanks in no small part to the Government's economic policies and the progressive leadership of the city's council, of which I have been privileged to be a member for many years, Edinburgh has a vibrant economy, and over the past four years unemployment has fallen by more than 60 per cent.
    However, as in many cities in which the general picture is one of economic prosperity, there are areas in my constituency, and sectors of society, that suffer severe deprivation and social exclusion. I believe that the Government's tax and welfare policies give us for the first time ever the possibility of lifting such areas and the people who live in them out of poverty once and for all.
    My constituency is a fascinating place, with a rich variety of people, communities and cultures. I am proud to represent it in Parliament, especially as I am not a native of the city, although I have lived there for more than 25 years and have grown to love it very much. The constituency is very mixed, but the benefits of Labour policies over the past four years and the improvements in public services can be seen everywhere.

    231
    Much of our debate has concentrated on education. That is of course a devolved matter, but my constituents are pleased that the £83 million public-private partnership investment will bring to the constituency four new or totally refurbished schools.
    My constituents also know that, in some cases, public services are not of the quality that they should be, and they want further improvements in them. Above all, they are interested in results and they want pragmatic solutions that will work, which is why. I heartily welcome the Government's decision to place investment and reform in the public services at the centre of their agenda for a second term. Exactly how that reform will be achieved will doubtless be debated further today and will be debated in the House and elsewhere in future.
    In closing, as a Labour and Co-operative Member, may I express the hope that the Government will bear in mind the special features and advantages that the co-operative and mutual model can bring to the provision of public services? I note with interest the suggestion made by my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham) on the rail industry; his idea on that issue is worthy of consideration.
    4.20 pm
    Mr. David Curry: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mr. Lazarowicz) and hear his maiden speech. I am not sure which clan the Lazarowiczs are affiliated to, but he wove his own tartan this afternoon, and I am sure that we all look forward to him elaborating his themes and talking about his constituency. He paid proper tribute to his predecessor, who was well respected in the House; the hon. Gentleman's commitment to his constituency, his understanding of its needs and his intention to enjoy it, which is important for a Member a Parliament, came through clearly from his speech. He is certainly a welcome colleague and a worthy opponent.
    I wish to ask for the indulgence of the House as I want to talk about something that is extremely important for my constituency but is not the main theme for today—the foot and mouth outbreak, which is of such imminent and urgent importance that I believe that the House will understand why I wish to raise it. Since the general election was called, there have been 80 confirmed cases and one slaughter on suspicion in my constituency and the neighbouring part of Lancashire. In addition, 326 premises have been culled out; nearly 250,000 animals will have been slaughtered in the few weeks since the Prime Minister announced that he intended to dissolve Parliament.
    My constituency had already been at a standstill for weeks before that because of the impact of foot and mouth in Wensleydale, Cumbria, Lancashire and Bradford. When the rest of the country believed that things were over—indeed, the Government were telling us that the disease was under control and all the graphs happily pointed to it petering out on or about 7 June—we had a virulent, violent and destructive outbreak that consumed all other activity. For many of my constituents, the general election was a surreal event taking place on a distant planet.
    232
    First, we had a long silence. For two weeks after the outbreak, we did not hear a word from any Minister of any description to acknowledge that it even existed. The sense of rising anger was palpable; people felt that they were being left to cope with the outbreak by themselves. Not merely did the world not know about the outbreak, it did not want to know about it. Then, we felt a sense of claustrophobic embattlement. Anybody who has driven down certain roads and seen fields where there used to be animals, but where there is now nothing, or witnessed the absolute silence and people not coming out of their houses, will have picked up a palpable sense of paranoia that is almost intimidating.
    Anger followed, because nobody understood what was happening and did not want to know about the unfolding drama. We had no information and nobody explained what was happening, so we had myths, which will always take the place of information when it is lacking. We now have myths that are so virulent that they have almost become gospel. There is the myth that in 1998 the Government agreed with the European Union simply to remove the livestock industry from the United Kingdom. Some people believe that passionately. There is also the belief that on 8 June there would be a super-cull of all the remaining animals; that was part of the same process. We even had the myth—it sounds comic, but one has to live in this atmosphere to understand how it was born—that Saddam Hussein was flying across the constituency in a helicopter, chucking out infected meat. That sounds comic, and people laugh at it instinctively, but one has to have experienced the sense of living on a nervous edge to understand why those myths took root.
    It is vital that the Government deal, first, with the rumours and say simply that those things are not true. That may be self-evident, but sometimes what is self-evident has to be expressed. I welcome the fact that the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs came to the House today to make a statement. That was a good start, but she should also explain what is happening. The former Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food was booking hotel rooms around the country, reserving lorry parks and putting logistics in place. It was perfectly sensible do so because its epidemiologists were trying to forecast where there might be another problem and be ahead of it, not behind it. People are mature enough to understand that that is a sensible activity; they should not pick it up from rumour and assume that it indicates that a plot or conspiracy is afoot and that the Government know something that they do not.
    A consequence of that is that officials of the Ministry, whom I commend, were exposed to all sorts of media interrogations on public platforms. Frankly, that is the job of Ministers, and we should not ask officials to undertake it. If, in addition, there is evidence that the disease has been spread because of improper observation of the rules and negligence, it is important that that is spelt out and that prosecutions follow. Once again, we have rumours, we have hints of a cause, but substance has not been given to those hints. In a landscape of shifting sentiment, it is important that as many anchors as possible should be put in place.
    The efficiency of the operation has been generally acknowledged. I know that there have been incidences of blunders, wrong decisions and cases in which things have gone wrong but, on the whole, farmers in my constituency

    233
    accept that the cull was carried out efficiently and with sensitivity. The problem is what has happened since. There is an enormous bottleneck in the people available to advise on cleansing operations. Farmers whose premises were culled out a month ago are still waiting to get an indication of what will take place and a timetable for rehabilitation and reoccupation. We need a bible of what happens. The real problem is not a shortage of vets; it is a myth that that is a problem. Quite frankly, vets are doing jobs that less-qualified people could do, but there is a terrible shortage of animal health officers. There are 11 animal health officers available to deal with the outbreak in my area, when usually we have five. As a result, only some 50-odd premises out of the 500 infected in Yorkshire are on the way to being cleansed and eventually brought back into use.
    Of course, farmers whose animals have been culled receive compensation. If we are honest, the valuations have been relatively generous. Some of my greatest concern is reserved for farmers in my constituency whose animals have not had foot and mouth; frankly, it is in their every economic interest for their animals to get it as soon as possible. The Secretary of State announced some relaxation of movement controls, but those farmers are utterly imprisoned and have no prospect of compensation. They are simply waiting to see whether the disease will eventually advance and strike their holdings, whereas the farmers whose animals have caught the disease will ultimately receive compensation.
    I have a great fear of the possibility of conflict in the countryside. Thousands of businesses have been brought to a halt by the outbreak and have been offered paltry assistance. I accept that the Government will not give collateral aid or direct compensation to businesses that have lost out as a result of foot and mouth. I do not think that any Government would do that and it is not realistic to ask for it, but the relatively small measures for such businesses pale into insignificance in comparison with some of the cheques that will go to farmers.
    I do not dispute the trauma of the slaughter and the impact on families who have spent generations building herds. I am not suggesting that compensation is a pay-off for the trauma that a family suffers, but it will enable some to get out and some to go on.
    Many businesses now face a summer that is already shot as far as they are concerned. Many parts of the country are now talking about getting back to business, but we face the prospect of no business, because there is no realistic prospect of the countryside being freed up this side of the summer. That will lead to a winter, for some at least, of bankruptcy. It is important to realise how much businesses depend on each other in the countryside. Farmers must be sensitive to the needs of other businesses, just as other businesses must understand the susceptibility and nervousness of farmers when it comes to opening up the countryside and footpaths being brought back into use.
    I hope that the Government will not funk having a proper inquiry. It will certainly find that some responsibility must be carried by the previous Government in terms of manpower and staffing, so there is no reason for the present Government to assume that it would be one long indictment of them. If we have to get used to the disease being endemic in the United Kingdom—if it has been in the sheep flock for a long time, that is a possibility, but I hope that blood tests will
    234
    demonstrate that it is containable—we shall have to think about how we deal with future outbreaks. My own view is that it is inconceivable that our response to another outbreak on the same scale would be the slaughter policy that we have just seen, because it would not be tolerated. A public inquiry into what went right and what went wrong, and to explore the practical alternatives, would do everyone a service.
    I ask the Government for four rapid decisions concerning business. The business rate relief scheme ends this month. That means that many businesses that still have no business, no cash and no customers still need help. Government aid for the affected regions was all decided before the outbreak hit the so-called Settle-Clitheroe triangle. That means that the £2.5 million available is wholly out of proportion to the scale of the disease in our area, because it started late when decisions had already been taken. The Government aid that is given to match voluntary funding through the Countryside Agency also runs out in June, and that needs renewing. We also need some assistance with tourism, because 90 per cent. of tourists in the Yorkshire dales are from the UK. Some 80 per cent. of that 90 per cent. are regional tourists, not international tourists. I would be happy to try to reassure some of the more paranoiac American visitors that it is safe to come to the UK, but I would much rather get them in from Bradford, Barnsley—we had a sort of Barnsley chop earlier, when we heard from both halves of Barnsley—Leeds and Liverpool, because that will achieve the immediate spend that we need.
    I wish to address two other issues briefly. There is a hidden industry in the countryside in Britain—the care of the elderly. We have recently discussed the issue of residential care homes and North Yorkshire has suffered particularly, because the grant system was changed and the new formula penalised us. However, a significant number of the people in care homes in North Yorkshire put themselves into care and were able to pay for it but have now run out of funding. They thus fall as a charge on the local authority but the Government do not count them in the calculation under which the local authority is funded, which is a significant problem. Proper fees must be paid if care homes are to remain in business. If they do not remain in business, all the reconfiguration of health and social services—itself the subject of controversy in my constituency—will be handicapped, because the care in the community aspect will be very vulnerable. I hope that the Government will consider that point.
    I also belong to the group of Members of Parliament concerned about the future of the House, and I ask the Government to take three issues into account, the first of which is a change in style. In the previous Session, we experienced what can be described only as a Stalinist approach to managing Government business. I hope that we will see much more flexibility in the timetabling. Secondly, I hope that the Government will act rapidly so that the Select Committees can reflect the new geometry of Whitehall to enable us to start our work as quickly as possible. I do not share the view that the sole problem with Select Committees is that their members are nominated by the Whips, because attendance is also a problem. We need to move more towards the congressional end of the congressional-parliamentary scale if Select Committees are to be effective. Finally, I agree that the Modernisation Committee should be in the hands of the House and chaired by a Back Bencher.

    235
    Having the Leader of the House chairing the Committee is tantamount to making the camp commandant the chairman of the escape committee. That does not work and I hope that all hon. Members—especially those who are new to the House—will realise that we must all seek to amplify the role of the House if we are to change voters' reactions to us. Otherwise, we will fall in with a system that will end by eroding the worth of all of us.
    4.35 pm
    Mr. Kevin Hughes: I am grateful for being called in this debate on an historic Gracious Speech. It is historic for Labour Members because it marks the first time that we have been elected for a second full term with the majority necessary to carry out our policies. I congratulate my new hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mr. Lazarowicz) on his maiden speech. It was excellent and I am sure that he will make a fine parliamentarian.
    This speech is like another maiden speech for me, because I spent the past four years on the Treasury Bench as a Government Whip. It feels odd up here on the Back Benches and it is certainly much higher than I remember it when I sat in a similar position on the other side of the Chamber. Instead of being restricted to moving formal motions on behalf of the Government, I am looking forward to making some less restricted interventions. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister for giving me the opportunity to be part of his first Government—the first Labour Government after 18 years of the Tories—but I must admit that it was more than a tad disappointing when he broke the news to me that he did not want me in his second Administration. I guess that he was suggesting that I should spend more time with my golf clubs. However, it is no good crying about such things and there is plenty of work for Back Benchers to do.
    While that lot over on the Tory Benches are busy examining their collective political navel, and no doubt disappearing into political oblivion, we have been elected to deliver better public services and to improve the lives of our people. In our first term, we undoubtedly laid sound foundations from which to go forward. We have a sound and stable economy that is unprecedented in recent times. We have made a good start on improving our health and education systems, on fighting crime and on reducing unemployment. After 18 years of the Tories, constituencies such as Doncaster, North had suffered more than most. The Tories said then that unemployment was a price worth paying. The problem was that it was not the Tories or their supporters who did the paying but people in constituencies such as mine, where thousands were thrown on to the scrap heap and left to rot on state handouts with little future and even less hope. [Interruption.]
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): Order. That is the second time that I have heard a mobile phone go off in the Chamber this afternoon. I do not know whose phone is ringing now, but I remind everyone that the Chair takes a serious view of such incidents. Members must either leave their phones outside or make sure that they are switched off.
    Mr. Hughes: If it is the Prime Minister for me, can someone tell him to hold on for a moment? When I have finished he might not want me to phone him back.
    236
    When we were elected in 1997, people had great expectations, many of which were unrealistic. It was never going to be easy or possible to roll back the devastation caused by the Tories in only four or five years, but we made a good start. However, anyone who read our increasingly cynical press would think that nothing had changed—except for the worse: even the bad weather that we had last year, and the foot and mouth outbreak, were entirely the Government's fault.
    I am pleased to welcome the programme set out in the Gracious Speech. I am especially pleased that there will be legislation to help more people back into work. In my constituency, unemployment has already been reduced by more than 40 per cent. by the Government, but, at almost 5 per cent., it is still far too high. We can do more.
    A proposed development in Doncaster would be very helpful in getting people back to work—and into real jobs, not schemes. Just weeks before the general election, the Government decided to hold a public inquiry into the proposed development of an international airport at the former Royal Air Force base at Finningley. It is imperative for the future of employment in Doncaster and the south Yorkshire area that this development go ahead, and sooner rather than later.
    There is no reason why the development should not go ahead. It does not represent a basic change of use, and the base is not a greenfield site. The project meets the Government's desire to redevelop brownfield sites and to transfer air traffic away from the south and south-east. It meets the Government's desire to regenerate coalfield areas, and to reduce road traffic. It has the support of local people and local business.
    How many hon. Members know of a proposed airport about which a petition has been compiled that is in favour of it? About 80 or 90 per cent. of the population of Doncaster is in favour of the development—even in the village of Finningley, where the people who started the petition live. If the project goes ahead, it will create as many as 7,000 jobs in 15 years. They will be real jobs: mainly unskilled or semi-skilled, but probably fairly well paid. We suffered al the hands of the Tories, and the project represents a real chance for the Labour Government to step forward and start to rebuild in Doncaster and south Yorkshire.
    The only real objections have come from other airports, on purely commercial grounds. Manchester airport has objected, as has Humberside airport—which is now owned by Manchester airport. East Midlands airport has also objected, although I understand that it is near to closing a deal with Manchester airport. Those airports must not be allowed to rob us of this job-creating opportunity out of pure commercial greed. Indeed, it may be time for the Competition Commission to start an inquiry into that growing consortium of northern airports, which thinks that it can dictate who can share in the wealth created by the ever-growing air traffic industry.
    On education, I was pleased that the Government plan to improve standards further. We need to develop more vocational provision. All too often, youngsters who may not be able to make it in academia are left on the touchline. even though they may have superb natural skills in practical matters. We must exploit every talent, whether it is academic or vocational.

    237
    I am pleased that the Government will continue to modernise the national health service, but there must be real change on the front line. The Tories starved the NHS, and would have gone for full-scale privatization—
    Mr. Michael Jack: No.
    Mr. Hughes: The right hon. Gentleman knows that the Tory goal was full-scale, American-type privatisation. They still hanker after that.
    Although we have made reforms and poured a great deal of extra cash into the NHS, I still have constituents who are waiting far too long for treatment, and not just for operations. Why is it that constituents have to wait more than a week—sometimes nearly two—just to get an appointment to see the general practitioner? What has happened to all the extra cash, and where is it being spent?
    Local health professionals—such as the chief executives of the health authority, the healthcare trusts and the Doncaster royal infirmary trust—tell me that they are delighted with the amounts of extra cash that have been made available, but, on the front line, my constituents appear not to be able to notice the improvements.
    When I was younger, my local GP practice had only two GPs, yet anyone who went to the surgery before 10 am could, after a wait of an hour or an hour and a half, see one of the GPs. Out of hours, it was possible to ring up and a GP would make a home visit. At the time, thousands of people in the area worked in heavy industry or coal mining. Many more people than now suffered injuries and the health problems inherent in working in those industries.
    Today that practice has four GPs—and sometimes six. There are triage nurses, physiotherapy nurses, chiropody nurses and district nurses. There are practice managers with computers coming out of their ears. There is a contract for out-of-hours service, yet my constituents have to wait more than a week for an appointment to see a GP. That beggars belief. Why does it happen, when we have more doctors and nurses, no out-of-hours visits and better facilities and support?
    I am therefore pleased that the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), is on the Front Bench to hear the debate. I hope that she will be able to answer some questions. Who is spending the money that has been made available? What are they spending it on? We must know those answers before we pour any more money into the NHS.
    I am pleased that we are to continue with reform of the other place, despite media speculation that we would not. I am pleased that the intention is to remove the remaining hereditary peers, but I should not be happy about any proposal to elect even part of a new second Chamber. I believe that that would lead to even more conflict between them and us. There can be and should be, only one democratically elected Chamber, and that is the House of Commons. If we give Members of the House of Lords a constituency, we give them a licence to oppose anything and everything that we de. We will end up in deadlock. We need a second Chamber that will act as a check and balance, not another delay mechanism in what is already a lengthy legislative process.
    238
    I am pleased, as I know that my constituents will be, that a Bill will be brought in to help the police fight crime. It is important to have in place a good and effective complaints system, and some of the Bill will be devoted to that, but it is not more complaints that we want. What we want is more police. More police mean less crime and fewer complaints. The main complaint from my constituents is about the police not responding when they need help. It is true that in some cases the police do not respond, but they cannot because there are not enough of them. My constituents do not want to hear, "Well, what can we do?"; they want to see the police around. They want the police to prevent crime, not turn up to look at an empty space where a television or video player used to be. if the police are to fulfil what we want of them, they need resources. I welcome any moves to achieve that.
    It is good to see the hunting with dogs Bill in the programme. It is time to end that barbaric pursuit. Terrorising and killing animals is disgusting. People who think that it is fun are disgusting. People who think that it is a sport need psychiatric help. However, it could have waited for the next Session. It is important but, I have to say, it was not top priority on the doorsteps of my patch when I was campaigning. People want jobs, better health care, better housing, improvements in education and less crime.
    I am not a big drinker, but I am disappointed that we are missing the opportunity to liberalise our archaic drinking laws. I understand that it is not an immediate priority. That said, I would rather that it were in front of the hunting Bill. Liberalisation would create more jobs. Pubs, clubs and associated industry in my area employ a considerable number of people. If we extended opening hours, it would lead to further welcome part-time employment for many people. It is ridiculous in 2001 still to be shackled to our archaic laws. People who go abroad on holiday experience more liberal laws and see their benefits. It seems silly that we are locked into archaic opening hours. We all know that extended opening would boost income, particularly in our tourist areas. Publicans in whatever area would soon find a timetable to suit their particular business. If I am lucky in the private Member's ballot, I might seek to introduce such a Bill.
    I should have liked there to have been something on devolution to the English regions. The Government remain committed to devolution in Scotland and Wales, and that is fine, but let us get decision making closer to the people of the English regions, too.
    There is much more in the Gracious Speech to be pleased with. I only hope that we are not again taking on more than it is feasible to get through the system with proper democratic scrutiny. The legislation that we passed in the second half of the last Parliament is not yet being felt on the ground. The message on the doorsteps of Doncaster. North was abundantly clear: yes, we have done well in only four years; yes, we have laid decent foundations; but go back and show what can be done with the full second term.
    I do not want to see battles with public sector workers for the sake of making us look tough. If there is to be private sector involvement in our public services, it must be only where appropriate and where it can bring added value. The idea that everything that the private sector does is good and everything that the public sector does is bad is stupid. The balance must be absolutely right because if it is not, our supporters will not forgive us. We do not

    239
    want any Railtracks in education or in our health service. There must be no imposition along those lines. Ministers must talk to those who work in our public services, and seek their knowledge on how the services should be run and how to improve them. Ministers must carry public servants with them and then they will carry the public with them, too. Ignore public servants at our peril; carry them and we will end up with much improved public services.
    4.54 pm
    Annette Brooke: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for giving me this opportunity to make my maiden speech in this debate.
    First, I thank the people of the Mid-Dorset and North Poole constituency for electing me as their Member of Parliament. It is a great honour to represent them and I promise to do my best in serving them.
    Mid-Dorset and North Poole was a new constituency, created in 1997. Hence, my predecessor, Christopher Fraser, was its first Member of Parliament. I pay tribute to his diligent and conscientious work for his constituents. Here, his parliamentary career progressed within a relatively short time. He was appointed Private Parliamentary Secretary to Lord Strathclyde. I recall it being reported in our local press that Christopher was voted the best dressed MP. I fear that I cannot aspire to his never-failing extremely smart appearance.
    It is traditional to spend a little time describing one's constituency. That will give me particular pleasure, as mine has one minor defect: its name, which presents problems to media commentators and local residents, and certainly does not give a real sense of place. It is located in a beautiful part of the country and I am proud to live in such a special area, which is made up of many different individual communities, both urban and rural. The constituency was created from parts of four other Dorset constituencies and local services are provided by four principal councils.
    About two thirds of the electorate live in the borough of Poole. This part of Poole includes more recent development, but there is great pride among local residents in belonging to the ancient borough of Poole. Four years ago, I had the great honour of being the 749th mayor of Poole. I am sad to say that I was only the 10th lady mayor in that long history.
    In North Poole, we have a great source of employment, which includes the head office of Dorset chamber of commerce and industry. We have many important small and large businesses covering engineering, electronics and computer-based industries, and recently the manufacture of Poole pottery has been relocated into the constituency.
    We have internationally significant heath land and outstanding recreational facilities. As we move across to the west of the constituency, and from many parts of North Poole, we have many glimpses of the famous Poole harbour, and as we go into the rural part of the constituency, which is the largest part in area, there is also a beautiful forest. We pass through villages, and when we get to the far west we reach Bere Regis and Wareham. Wareham is a beautiful Saxon walled market town and it, like Poole, was very important in trading. Perhaps some
    240
    hon. Members have experienced a very pleasant boat trip from Poole quay to Wareham, where one can get excellent fish and chips.
    I have deliberately referred to Poole harbour because my constituents would not forgive me if I did not mention the need for a second Poole bridge. I am sure that I will co-operate with the lion. Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) in making sure that that is firmly on the Government's agenda.
    As I have described, my constituency is made up of many diverse communities, but their interdependence and complementary nature underline many of the challenges facing the Government in terms of urban and rural policy making. The whole of my constituency is indeed greater than its parts. I wish to put Mid-Dorset and North Poole firmly in decision makers' minds.
    Across the diverse communities in my constituency there is a common issue: the need for better public services. I welcome the priority given to these in the Queen's Speech. My concern is whether the detailed proposals will deliver improvements, as clearly demanded and deserved by the public.
    I shall speak on one public service today—education—as it is an area in which I have direct experience as a former chair of education. Yesterday, I was aware of comments floating in the direction of the Liberal Democrat Benches that it is not simply a matter of money. Most of us would agree that we cannot improve public services just by throwing money at the problems. I would like to stop today to think about the consequences of a lack of money.
    The local education authorities in my constituency—Dorset and Poole—receive considerably less funding than those in other parts of the country. In fact, for this financial year, it works out that they have together received 10 per cent. Less than the average standard spending assessment in England. Nobody would expect identical allocations across the country, but we have a right to expect to understand the differentials, so that we have a fair, open and transparent system.
    Parents and teachers in my constituency find it difficult to understand why schools in Poole receive on average £274 per pupil less than those in other constituencies. That seems largely to come down to the problem of the area cost adjustment. I am aware that that has been raised many, many times. It was never addressed properly by the Conservative Government and the deferring of the day of sorting out such problems seems to go on and on. Meanwhile, our children are losing out, and for all time.
    On the face of it, the consequences of that lack of money in my constituency are not apparent because we achieve excellent results. However, that is due to the commitment and excellence of our teachers and the commitment of our parents. In many parts of the constituency, there have been financial improvements in schools owing to parents' commitment to providing extra funds.
    However, I described my constituency as diverse, and it is. There are parts where there is extreme poverty. It is very difficult to be sure that children are receiving the education that they deserve when it is not possible for parents to put in extra money or secure sponsorship from firms and local industry. I am concerned about every child in my constituency and I would like to think that every child matters. I really want to know when those issues will be addressed.

    241
    In 1997, Dorset returned eight male Conservative Members of Parliament. In 2001, there are six Conservative Members, one Labour Member and one Liberal Democrat—seven male and one female. Over the next few years, I hope that I will be able to demonstrate that that is an improvement in representation in more ways than one.
    5.2 pm
    Mr. Peter Kilfoyle: I congratulate the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke) on her maiden speech. She mentioned that her predecessor was voted the best dressed MP—I appreciate that that is not something to which I could ever aspire—but when she first came into the Chamber her vivid red clothes reminded me terribly of the Blair babes, as they were known. Perhaps my eyes are going. I am sure that she is immensely proud to represent a beautiful part of Thomas Hardy country. Her constituency is an excellent part of our national heritage.
    I am very sad that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills is not in the House so that I could press her further on the proposals that she may or may not have for privatising parts of our education service. I hope that her colleagues on the Government Front Bench will relay my felicitations and congratulations not only on her very good speech but on her well deserved promotion to the sunny uplands of the Cabinet. I say without fear of contradiction that she is one person who very much deserved her promotion. Long may she be in that role and successful at it.
    The Gracious Speech began with the assertion that economic stability and reform in public services will lead to
    "a more prosperous and inclusive society."
    I am afraid that I must beg to differ slightly with that. Those two areas of government are very important to achieving such objectives, but many other matters must be addressed if, in the name of social justice, all our citizens are to be included and are to share in the desired prosperity.
    Many of the measures set out in the Gracious Speech are certainly to be welcomed. It would be churlish not to mention them, but they relate to a particular view of government. I remember when the flavour of the month in my party was communitarianism. I did not take a great deal of notice of the half-baked ideas of Amitai Etzioni when such views were fashionable. When the third way came on to the scene, I did not lend my name to it. Indeed, I did not lend my name to the third way. the fourth way or the fifth way. Nobody could ever explain the third way to me and I never understood what they were going on about anyway. It seemed, in part at least, to represent a more technocratic and managerial view of what government can achieve—a view that is very well reflected in the Gracious Speech.
    As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said yesterday, the Gracious Speech did not contain the sum total of measures that will be considered by the House during the Session. Many other items might arise that were not set out in the Gracious Speech; indeed, I hope that that happens. The Speech contained a list of the Government's priorities. Presumably, they were set out at least in part to reconnect with the many millions of people who turned their backs on electoral politics last month.
    242
    That is one theory behind the delivery argument that has repeatedly been advanced in recent weeks. I think that we must at some point explain what exactly we mean by delivery. There is certainly a high expectation of all forms of delivery in education, health, crime reduction and transport. I take the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham): our yardstick must be what happens in our constituencies. Many good things have happened during the Government's period in office. For example, with regard to education in my constituency, I cannot cavil at the amount of capital investment that has gone into our schools, although there is still a long way to go and many have missed out. That is partly due to the ineptitude of a local Lib Dem council that cannot get its act together. but many problems have also arisen because of a basic shortage of available funding. Although plenty is available, it is not enough to meet the huge backlog that built up over the years.
    On health, the circumstances are similar. Investments have been made in our local health provision, but horror stories are still coming out of local hospitals in particular. We still need to address the problem that was highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Hughes), who pointed out that, despite increased resources, the service outcome often seems to get worse. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health will want to consider the matter in terms of delegation or devolution of powers to a regional level. Who knows? Improvements might be made even lower down the supply chain and at the coal face, where it really counts.
    The achievement of the promises that have been made on delivery in those many areas will rest on the Government's actions during the next 18 months or so. I refer to 18 months because of the long lead-in time of so many of our commitments. For example, we have a commitment to increase the number of teachers, but we need to recognize—we did not seem to do so before—that it will take a long time for the required number of teachers to train and qualify. Do we have the capacity to meet demand within the period in which people expect it to be met? It is no use talking to the electorate about a 10-year plan. They will think about what happens between now and the next election.
    The commitment to produce another 10,000 or so doctors is similar. Does not it take six or seven years to train a doctor? People will expect a positive service outcome way before the first cohorts have completed their training. I accept that many have already started, but do we have the capacity to train the numbers? There is often a mismatch between presentation and the expectation that is out there.
    It may seem ridiculous at such an early stage to look four years ahead, but people know how quickly the electoral cycle ends. People also understand that events in the early days of a Parliament determine what happens at its end. I like to look ahead. At the next general election, there is no way that we, the governing party, can offer excuses to the electorate, given our firm commitments on delivery. It is therefore essential to move quickly to effect the necessary changes to meet expectations.
    It is not impossible to achieve that, but it does not require a technocratic view of government; it demands a political vision. I hope that we shall see signs of that shortly. When Clem Attlee became Prime Minister of a bankrupt country, he was able to effect his vision of the

    243
    British polity in one Parliament. It did not take him four years to put in building blocks; he implemented his vision in times of great adversity. We face such urgency, at least in electoral terms, today.
    I am worried about the omissions from the Gracious Speech and the expectations of people who have hitherto been Labour voters. We must all take note of what happened in the last general election. Much nonsense has been talked about it. Once the academics get into the number crunching, they will confirm what sensible observers have already divined. There was great apathy and some complacency. Some people also took the attitude of, "A plague on all your houses; you do not relate to my life." That should worry everyone in politics; several hon. Members have already said that. We must take the matter seriously because people's attitudes are linked to what the Government provide. In that context, the omissions from the Gracious Speech are especially stark.
    Some of my hon. Friends have spoken about local government, which remains an important delivery mechanism, not only for central Government services but for those that directly affect the quality of life. Housing remains a major issue for people. However, the proposed changes to housing legislation deal only with those who buy and sell houses, and not with the rented sector. They should, because the rented sector is a matter of grave concern.
    Like many constituencies, mine has a mix of owner-occupied, privately rented, council rented and housing association properties. Often, meaningful planning is obstructed when attempts are made to tackle serious housing problems. There is a matrix, one part of which tends to act against the other when we try to achieve something meaningful. The Gracious Speech does not tackle that.
    Local councils cover poorly lit streets and potholes in the street, which are obvious manifestations of poor government in many people's eyes. Many of the more esoteric subjects with which we get carried away do not matter an iota to someone who has a leaking roof, a huge pothole in the road outside that no one will fix, or goes home down a street with broken lighting. Local authorities can and should provide the services that matter most.
    However, local authorities of all political hues are over a barrel because of our terrible centralising tendency. That has happened under a Labour Government and under previous Governments. It has been growing for a long time; it is almost as if we do not trust people to get on with their lives. We have not done so for the best part of 20 or 25 years. That detracts from the democratic process and people's involvement. It also constitutes a failure to deliver what we claim we are here to provide: a tangible improvement in people's everyday lives. We simply do not do it. For me, that accounts for a major part of the disaffection felt by a large part of the electorate towards politicians of all parties at the election.
    To go back to the idea of delivering on our public services, I wonder about the time frame in which expectations are set, as opposed to the time frame in which delivery can take place; for example, in the training of personnel. I also wonder what will happen to the financial settlement after 2003. It seems as though we
    244
    shall come to a great unknown at that point. How are we going to finance the public services in a meaningful way after that date? The Government will need to be able to convince us that they can continue what appears to be a very ambitious programme for public services, and we shall need to know, quite frankly, where the money will come from.
    Other issues that I would have liked to be included in the Gracious Speech have been ignored. There is nothing about the review that is needed of the financial settlement between the countries and regions of the United Kingdom. I shall not repeat what my hon. Friends have said about the unequal funding of the different parts of the United Kingdom.
    In the north, we feel disadvantaged by the Barnett formula, which certainly favours Scotland and Wales. We also feel disadvantaged by an area cost adjustment that, for years, has taken money away from local government and put it into the south-east. That is all done for very sensible reasons, but the net result has been a disparity in funding between some regions of the United Kingdom and others, which cannot be justified. It seems as though the time is right to review that situation. There might be a case to be made for some of those disparities, but I cannot recollect when the last review took place.
    Mr. Simon Thomas: May I associate myself with the hon. Gentleman's comments about the need for a review of the Barnett formula? The last review took place when the formula was established in 1979 as a pro tem measure, but it has continued for more than 20 years. Does he agree, however, that if we are to review the formula, we should do so using a needs-based analysis of all the regions of England, Wales and Scotland? That might undermine his case that Wales is over-funded, but it could do a lot of good for the regions of England as well.
    Mr. Kilfoyle: I do not claim to be an expert on finance in Wales, or, indeed, in England, Scotland or anywhere else. However, I know that different amounts of money go to different parts of the country. I accept that any resolution of that inequity must be carried out on the basis of need. As I understand it, the Barnett formula was originally introduced to dampen down the cries for devolution. It was, in a sense, a way of trying to buy people off. That does not strike me as a sensible way of achieving a financial settlement that pays due attention to the needs of all the people in the whole of the United Kingdom.
    There are deeper issues to be considered at some point by the Government. Perhaps they are not issues on which we can legislate, but some concerns could certainly be addressed either administratively or in the extra legislation that might magically appear, to which the Prime Minister alluded in the House yesterday. One such issue is the widening economic gap between still depressed parts of the country and other parts which—fair play to them—seem to be doing rather well.
    We experience on a day-to-day basis—I am sure that other hon. Members will have had similar experiences—businesses uprooting and moving to a different part of the country. They do not even go abroad, just to another part of this country, and they are using grants provided by the Government. The problem is therefore rotated from place to place. Jobs are created in one area at the expense of

    245
    jobs in another. That cannot be right. Furthermore, it cannot be right that more and more Members of this House, and other commentators, are talking about how to cater for the shortage of labour in the south-east while there are still problematic areas in the north-west and other similar regions.
    At a recent meeting, I pointed out that in the north Liverpool poverty cluster—that is not my definition; it is from the London school of economics—there are 269,000 people. There is a crux area of six wards—my constituency. Four of those are among the poorest 12 wards in the United Kingdom. There is a concentration of poverty there that needs to be addressed, but, to be absolutely frank, the local council cannot and will not handle it. That is true not only of the Lib Dems, who are in now, but of the previous council, which could not get to grips with the enormity and complexity of the problems. That concentration of poverty needs to be addressed by significant Government intervention, which is as true of poverty clusters in Manchester, Leeds and central London as of those anywhere else. I look forward to that action.
    I also feel strongly about an issue that might seem a little contentious: the idea that we can do nothing to address the widening gap between the individual rich and the individual poor is anathema to me. Some people say, "Well, that's the enterprise society." I see nothing enterprising in people getting a bigger and bigger share of the economic cake at the expense—there is no way to cloak this—of those at the bottom of the heap.
    I also looked for a proposal that might enable me to feel more comfortable about the way in which employees in this country, in a variety of ways, still do not have the same conditions affecting their working life as employees in our partner countries in Europe. I still hope that, somewhere along the way, we will be able to consider those issues during this Parliament.
    I referred to jobs that move within the country, and we all know that an announcement was made recently about consultation. That is one issue, and I understand that the Government have resolved it in respect of firms consulting with their employees before they up and move somewhere else. Many firms up and move to Europe and it remains a fact that it is easier to get rid of an employee in this country than in Europe.
    When push comes to shove, global corporations undertake global reviews—for example, that announced by Glaxo last week, under which 700 jobs in Liverpool went. Jobs go because companies say that they have undertaken a global review, but that hides a multitude of sins. There may be sound economic reasons within that company to rationalise in such a way, but it is undeniable that one consideration in such a rationalisation is that it is far, far easier for it to get rid of employees in the UK than elsewhere in Europe.
    Mr. Eric Forth: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way and, as ever, I am following his penetrating analysis. Does he accept that there might just be a relationship between the happily low unemployment enjoyed by this country, which is comparable to that in the United States, and the Government's boast that inward investment is at a sustained level and that capitalists are voting with their money and coming here? Compare that with the situation
    246
    in continental Europe, which receives very little of the flow of inward investment and where unemployment is much higher.
    Mr. Kilfoyle: I accept that there is a relationship and I give the Government credit for the way in which they have sustained that inward investment, but there is always a cost. My priority has to be the constituency that I represent. We are on the outer rim, where people are the last to feel the benefit and the first to feel the pain. That is my point.
    I am sure that the Government are inventive enough to address the issue, but unless we can find ways to equalise the playing field for companies that have taken the plunge and put the investment in—many do, let us be fair—people in the peripheral parts of the United Kingdom will always be the first to lose out. I hope that the Government will address those matters.
    I want the Government to succeed and I look forward to them being returned at the next election, which is four years off. I would love Labour to get an equally huge majority—I make no bones about that. I do not worry about the democratic arguments in the way that Opposition Members may do. As far as I am concerned, if a party is given a mandate by the people, it should take it and do whatever needs to be done.
    However, I do not believe that it will be quite so straightforward, as we approach the next election, to argue the case on delivery of public services unless we take the necessary and appropriate action now. I echo what my hon. Friends have said about this: it is not a case of simply having a knee-jerk reaction against public ownership or control and privatising everything. I take a pragmatic view and believe that some things need to be privatised. However, the idea that privatisation is always better is palpable nonsense. If we look to privatisation to cure one ill, it mystifies me why the logical corollary is not that we should take into public ownership something on which the private sector has failed, such as Railtrack. I cannot see how one possibility can be excluded while we embrace the other side of the argument. It does not make the pragmatic economic sense to which the Government aspire.
    My biggest concern is that we re-engage as many people as possible in our political life. To do that, we must keep faith with them and deliver on our promises. I am sure that the Government will make every effort to do so, but the harsh reality is that they do not have a great deal of time. What is done over these first 18 months or so will determine the outcome down the line. I worry that if we are to get reciprocity from those who have lent their support hitherto, albeit in diminishing numbers out of the overall electorate, we must be able to deliver at the next election. That requires a more than technocratic approach to government in the coming months.
    5.26 pm
    David Davis: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle), who is an old friend and always forthright in his comments. I was glad to hear that he rejects the third way; he will appreciate that I have more trouble with the fourth way in my normal practices.
    I take this opportunity to congratulate the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke) on her gracious maiden speech. Winston Churchill once stood up

    247
    in this House after a maiden speech and said that it was no maiden; it was a brazen hussy of a speech. That was not true of the hon. Lady's speech, which was delicate, well put and generous. She gave great credit to her predecessor, which reflects well on her.
    Before I comment on the main thrust of the Queen's Speech, I should like to make a couple of comments. First, I congratulate the new Secretary of State for Education and Skills. She was a stellar performer as a junior Minister and she deserves her appointment to the Cabinet. Secondly, I thank the Secretary of State for Health for including in the Queen's Speech the Adoption and Children Bill. It started in the last Parliament with a lot of all-party support and the right hon. Gentleman knows my interest in it. It has some way to go in this Parliament.
    May I make a plea to the right hon. Gentleman? We are undertaking a complex piece of social legislation. One of the great problems with bipartisan legislation is that it rarely gets the scrutiny that it deserves and it then goes wrong. We have a piece of legislation that could dramatically affect the lives of more than 50,000 children. I urge the Government to give the Bill all the time that it needs to receive proper scrutiny, perhaps continuing the Special Committee stage that was started in the last Parliament. That is the only way to ensure that that eminently sensible and worthwhile Bill gets on to the statute book in proper form and does the duty that it sets out to do.
    I shall now adopt a slightly less conciliatory tone. The Government are without doubt the most powerful in half a century. That is not a compliment. During the last Parliament, they used their power to undermine the rights of Parliament and to diminish their own accountability. Those points have been raised by others already today. Nothing in the Queen's Speech, nor in what the Leader of the House or the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush (Mr. Soley) said earlier today, indicates that anything will be different in this Parliament.
    Like my right hon. Friends the Members for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) and for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry), who have spoken already, I am a member of Parliament First, a group founded by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) and consisting of Members of all parties of the House, and I am dedicated to reinstating the power of the House. Most particularly, I am committed to implementing the recommendations of the Select Committee on Liaison to enforce the effectiveness of this Chamber and the Select Committee system. We shall use every opportunity throughout this Parliament to advance that cause.
    The fact that the Government are very powerful has another implication, which was touched on by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton. Throughout the previous Parliament, the Government blamed their predecessors for everything that went wrong, and claimed the credit for everything that went right. That is about to come to an end because those days are over. The Government have the power and the money, and they have already had plenty of time to deliver on their promises. They are running out of excuses. Indeed, they will be going into an excuse-free zone for the next four years. From now on, they will have to account for their failures—and there will be failures.
    248
    Although I believe that the Government have heard the expressions of irritation, anger and disappointment from constituents up and down the country, they do not understand how to respond. They have taxed more, spent more and interfered more. They still believe that by spending more, services will automatically improve and that bigger government is better government.
    The increases in spending that were introduced in the Budget that preceded the general election will be unaffordable unless taxes rise substantially in the latter half of this Parliament. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton identified that problem in his usual forthright way.
    Mr. Gareth R Thomas: The right hon. Gentleman referred to spending increases. May I take him back to the election campaign and ask him whether the brief contribution of the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin), before he went into hiding, was helpful or unhelpful to his party's campaign?
    David Davis: I shall pick up on that point in a few moments because I want to explain to the House what I think about the relationship between expenditure and taxation. Before that intervention, I was making the point that the Government may be concerned about these tax changes only if they have an electoral cost. The real cost to Britain is more important than that.
    A rising burden of taxation will ultimately undermine our ability to invest in public services. Low taxes and high-quality public services are not mutually exclusive; they are essential partners. The logic is straightforward enough, and has been proven in this country before. Low tax rates lead to higher economic growth rates. High growth rates lead to higher tax takes—any Treasury Minister knows that. Higher tax takes give the opportunity of public service increases and subsequent tax cuts. That was the story and the lesson of the 1980s, and it is a lesson that we should understand today.
    I predict trouble ahead for the Government. Judging by the new-found tone of humility, I think that they also fear trouble. Simply pouring resources into public services will not, in itself, deliver real improvement, any more than it did in the last Parliament. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton also touched on that point effectively, although not so explicitly.
    The problem with our public services is not just under-investment, although that is a major issue in many areas. Their structures and organisations are incapable of delivering the quality of service that an increasingly demanding society requires—the very point about GPs not being able to meet the demands put on them.
    When the Secretary of State for Education and Skills opened the debate, she talked about the transformation of public services. The so-called transformation proposed in the Queen's Speech has little chance of doing the job. In no area is that so true as it is in health. We should consider just a few of the country's problems. Every year, 5,000 patients die from infections that they did not have when they went into hospital. That costs the health service £1 billion a year. It is not a question of increases in expenditure: that swallows expenditure.
    Comparisons with our European neighbours show that tens of thousands of people in this country die unnecessarily of cancer, strokes or cardiac disease. Tens of thousands more die of medical mistakes, which is an

    249
    issue that the Secretary of State and I have discussed. More than 2 million bed days are lost each year because of delays in the discharging of older people to carers. More than 1,000 operations a week are cancelled on the day of admission. Despite massive interventions—through targets that distort clinical priorities and reduce the quality of service—nearly 1.5 million people remain on waiting lists, and the new suspended lists have grown.
    My right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire cited the case of a cancer patient who had been in touch with him and who was on a waiting list for radiotherapy. Only four or five weeks ago I encountered a similar case, although this person was suffering from throat cancer rather than breast cancer. It had taken a year for him to be diagnosed, owing to a combination of mistakes and delays in being able to see a specialist—a story that we have heard time and again. As a result, after the operation it was found that the cancer had spread, and the patient needed radiotherapy. Like my right hon. Friend's constituent, he had to wait three months for that. I do not know how other Members feel, but I would find that a terrifying experience.
    There cannot be a Member who has been here for the past four years who has not encountered such a case. That person was by no means the first of my constituents to describe circumstances in which terrifying waits or problems had been experienced or, alternatively, life savings had been spent on escaping a life of pain by opting for private treatment—sometimes in other countries.
    The truth is that Britain, the world's fourth largest economy, is delivering health care whose quality is lower than that provided by most of our European partners. It is far lower than that in the United States, and it is lower than that in many countries that are much less wealthy than ours. The Government's solution is to increase public spending at a rate that will require higher taxes in future. Their increases in health spending cannot match those of our partners, or keep pace with rising demand; nor can an NHS structure designed more than half a century ago make the best use of the additional resources that both political parties have promised the health service for two decades.
    This is the reality of the national health service. It is failing patients, and its centralised bureaucracy is delivering worse care than most of its equivalents abroad. The national health service reform Bill appears to recognise the problem of centralisation and bureaucracy—I will give the Secretary of State that—but its solutions are inadequate. They will create yet more futile reorganisation, which NHS workers must view with little enthusiasm.
    We must think again. The NHS needs radical surgery. Advances in technology will undoubtedly make much more individually tailored health care available, but the worst possible organisation to deliver individually tailored health care is a centralised state bureaucracy. We should be making the state the guarantor of the free availability and quality of health care, rather than its primary provider. That is the key issue in this debate. We should be looking at the possibility of giving each patient an explicit choice of health care, as well as harnessing the effectiveness of the private sector in a more transparent way. Radical solutions do not necessarily mean privatising the NHS; what they mean is that we should personalise the service,
    250
    making it responsive to patients and their GPs rather than to the central bureaucracy and the central plan of the Secretary of State. There is a similar story in our schools.
    Geraint Davies: Many of the statistics that the right hon. Gentleman has rightly quoted come from the Public Accounts Committee. Does he accept that many of the Committee's recommendations have already been embraced by the Government in their national health plan? Does he also accept that his final suggestion that we should lift responsibility from the state in some way was never one of the PAC's recommendations, and that he was making a political point?
    David Davis: Of course, that is correct. That is the first time that I have ever been criticised for making a political point in the House of Commons, but let me answer the hon. Gentleman's question in the spirit in which it was asked. He is right. Indeed, as The Guardian rather tediously reminded people yesterday, the Government have carried out some 950 of the Committee's recommendations, but let me give one example of the sort of problem that arises from the centralised approach.
    We criticised the cancellation of operations on the day of admission; the hon. Gentleman will remember the case. I commend the Secretary of State for Health for including in his NHS plan a requirement—a target—for the health authorities: there were to be no more than a certain number of cancellations on the day of admission. What did we see barely a month or two ago? The first health authority moved cancellations to the day before admission. That is not the way to run the health service. Regional organisations are distorting the intent in order to meet the new rules. That is the problem. As I have said throughout, the mechanism used was well intentioned—I have no argument whatever with the intention of the ministerial team—but the problem of running the service centrally is that we always run into difficulties, with regional organisations trying to meet the rules to the disadvantage sometimes of patients. We had a clear-cut example of that.
    If we believe the Department for Education and Skills, everything is getting better in our schools. The truth is a little different. The currency of the qualifications is being debased. A-level standards have fallen by a full grade since the Government came to power. That point was raised by Durham university when the A-level results were published last August.
    Let us look outside the Department for a more empirical and reliable external measure. International surveys show that standards in mathematics and science have not moved in the past five years when measured against those of our international competitors, so standards are stagnating rather than rising, and in any case are far too low. The worst standards—I come back to a point made by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton—are in the areas of highest deprivation.
    It is a tragedy that this country—it is an issue not just for this Government, but for Governments in the next half a century at least—has let down the weakest pupils in education for as long as I can remember. I have forgotten which hon. Member on the Government Benches mentioned the failure of the secondary modern system, part of the system whereby we had grammar schools and secondary moderns. They failed because they did not

    251
    carry through the social experiment drawn up during the second world war. We have never done a good job for the weakest pupils in Britain, and it is about time that we set about that properly.
    The starting point for a fundamental reassessment of schools policy—in this area, I have some overlap with the Government—must be more robust use of testing, something that we fought for in government against opposition from Labour, although Labour has now adopted it. That is fine; I am always happy to welcome a prodigal son. If more parental choice in education is to be meaningful, it must be accompanied by clear information about the performance of schools. We need a proper standardisation of exams and new measurement of children's abilities on entering and leaving school. Crude league tables are no longer enough—they were a start; they raised the public's attention; and they raised interest in and focused political attention on school performance, but now they are no longer good enough. Our method of assessing relative school performance needs to be far more sophisticated.
    The Secretary of State promised value-added measures by 2002. I welcome that. I hope that that means a complete set of measures being published by 2002, rather than the start of a five or seven-year programme to get them five or seven years thereafter. Nevertheless, the devil is in the detail. Standardised measures must be formulated properly and not biased by social or economic adjustments or by the judgments of local education authority officials. They must be formulated on the basis of an absolute standard.
    The Secretary of State made a very good point about the problem of education in weaker schools. Expectations in weak schools are too low. One way of galvanising expectations would be to test and compare schools in a manner that is fair to all schools. I would be demoralised if I worked in a school in a poor area where new pupils had not been given a very good education and we were being compared with schools in middle-class or better areas. However, if I worked in such a school and knew that I would be compared fairly, I would be motivated to deliver the best possible outcome for those youngsters. Therefore, value-added testing is important not only as a means of measuring schools but as a means of motivating teachers.
    We need more choice and a more diverse system, and we are being promised such a system, but it is ironic that it was this Government who declared war on grant-maintained schools, assisted places and grammar schools. As I said, however, we welcome the prodigal's return. Nevertheless, such changes alone will not be sufficient, and good schools should be allowed to expand freely. Still, we must worry about what happens at the other end of the scale.
    We have to worry about how to rescue children from the worst schools when those schools are declining. Schools are not like shops, and children cannot simply move from one school to another, but tend to sign up to a school for five to seven years. We have to find a way of dealing robustly with failure. It is not a matter simply of sending in a few high-profile hit squads, accompanied by television cameras, or of martyring a few harassed superheads, let alone of posturing at a few National Union of Teachers conferences. The Government will have to
    252
    confront one of the toughest issues of all—whether to allow the very worst schools to continue at all in their current form, or to take much more direct action than they are currently planning.
    Policing is another social service. However, the Government have not been tough either on crime or on the causes of crime. They have simply been tough on individual freedoms and on our police forces. Between 1997 and the end of last year, police numbers had decreased by almost 3,000. Between March 1999 and 2000, crime increased for the first time in seven years. Our police are now too overworked to fight today's crime.
    Compared with the situation of 30 years ago, a typical police officer now has annually to deal with double the number of crimes. Simply to return to the police officer to crime ratio that prevailed in the 1980s, we would need more than 30,000 more police officers and probably twice the number of special constables. Such an increase would be affordable over time, and the practical effects of such an increase would be rapid. Regrettably, however—as the previous Home Secretary knows only too well—funding for more police has not been one of the Chancellor's priorities.
    The police reform Bill will bring some improvements in police complaints procedures and some helpful changes in how forces are run. However, the measure will do very little to make inroads into rising crime levels. It will not deal with the problems that prevent police from meeting the wishes of their local populations.
    There is a resource issue to be addressed. The most important measure to deliver real crime reduction would be a dramatic increase in police numbers. That has been the experience of New York, which is now a safer city than London and has about one and a half times as many police. The Government, however, have taken a different course. They have cheap-skated our police forces and tried to make up for that with increasingly draconian changes to the law. An auction of our liberties has been accompanied by decreasing police numbers.
    In the previous Parliament, the Government took the right to remove passports on suspicion and attempted to end some people's right to trial by jury. That attempt was defeated in the Lords last time and we hope that the new attempt will suffer a similar fate.
    We all want to catch and punish the guilty, but we will not do that by eroding the rights of the innocent. This police state without the police undermines the fundamental British principles of liberty and justice and is wholly ineffective as a means of stopping crime. It is simply the wrong approach.
    It is time to break the back of the idea that things will always get better if only we spend a little more. That is worse than just an illusion: it is a dogma that has beset Britain for too long and is directly responsible for the growing disillusionment with our entire political process referred to by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton.
    People know that things are not getting better. Every day, patients endure unnecessary suffering, indignity and death because of the failure of our health service. Every day, children have their prospects and ambitions destroyed because their Government have not been resolute in tackling failure in schools. Every day, everyone pays the cost of record levels of crime, because we have not faced up to the need to police our streets.

    253
    Those whom we are letting down now are not the strong or the able: they are the weakest and the poorest, those without choice and without opportunity. They are part of the lost generation of voters for all parties. They are the people whom our political system, and the House, no longer offers any credible hope. We have all been imprisoned by a system that drives serious debate out of politics. It is time we were brave enough to be radical.
    5.52 pm
    Mr. Clive Betts: I want to reflect on the comments of my hon Friend the Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Hughes I about how strange it is to make a speech again after four years of enforced silence in the Whips Office. This is my first speech from this side of the Chamber. Four years is a quite a long time. Perhaps after the next 10 or 15 minutes, cries of "Four more years!" will ring round the Chamber. I spent a happy four years in the Whips Office, if the idea of a happy Whip is not too hard a concept for hon. Members to contemplate.
    I am pleased to have the opportunity to talk about the improvements in our public services—the issue that ordinary electors raised with me on the doorstep during the general election campaign. They were concerned about health, education, crime and transport, among other issues.
    Without a strong economy, the debate about improving public services would be irrelevant. The fact that we created 1 million more jobs, with more people paying tax and fewer on benefit, has brought about sound public finances. We know what to do with those sound public finances: we will use them to improve our public services, which is what the public voted for. That contrasts with the official Opposition, who would have frittered away the benefits of that strong economy on tax cuts, which the electorate rejected, and with the Liberal Democrats, who would have frittered away the strong economy with a splurge of public expenditure increases that neither they nor anyone else has any idea how to fund. They called for more nurses, doctors and teachers; more for pensioners and for farmers; the abolition of student fees; and free long-term care for the elderly. A penny on income tax would never have funded all that, and in the end the electorate were not fooled.
    Dr. Evan Harris: I am delighted to respond to the hon. Gentleman's litany of our excellent pledges. He must recognise that not all of them were to be funded by the 1p on income tax, which was for education. He is clearly against our proposal of 10p on the top rate of income tax for those earning more than £ 100.000—it is too redistributive for him—which was the, fair way of funding our promises on pensions and the health service.
    Mr. Betts: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments, but I still do not think that his sums add up, and he failed to mention the fact that the Liberal Democrats supported the new deal but voted against the tax increases to fund it. That is another hole in their finances.
    Education has rightly been given great priority; I, too, accord it and specialist schools importance. I am in favour of such schools, which have been of great benefit to the children who attend them. Indeed, I am bound to say so
    254
    because the Secretary of State for Education and Skills has
    written to me today, announcing not one but two new specialist schools in my constituency: Birley community college and Hansworth Grange school. I welcome those measures; both schools deserve those awards.
    There is concern, however, not about the creation of specialist schools or the fact that they disadvantage other schools, but about parents' perception: parents considering sending their children to other schools may think that they are somehow inferior. That is certainly not true in the case of adjacent schools in my constituency, but parents' perception may be a danger. Ministers ought to consider how they will tackle that, along with other schools. The school adjacent to Birley community college in my constituency is Westfield school, which is in no way inferior but, unfortunately, has inferior school buildings.
    I therefore support strongly the Government's building programme in education. In Sheffield, there has been an increase from the 1996 allocation of between £1 million and £2 million a year for capital programmes in education to more than £100 million, which is currently being spent on building works in schools throughout the city. In my constituency, schools have been built through the private finance initiative; some have been built through the new deal and some through mainstream funding. Pupils, school governors and staff are not worried how schools are built or how financing is secured; they are just grateful that they have new schools, which would not have been provided by the Opposition. My plea is certainly for more school building programmes; we should carry on the good work. I hope that Westfield school is near the top of Ministers' priorities, as its buildings are poor and have been deteriorating for many years. A working party has been set up between the Department for Education and Skills and Sheffield city council officials to look at school assets, so I hope that a new asset plan will bring help to that area.
    I wish to sound a cautionary note about pre-school education. One of the best things that we did in the previous Parliament was to provide universal pre-school education for four-year-olds. Getting to children early, particularly those from disadvantaged homes, is very important indeed. I welcome the commitment to get universal provision down to the age of three.
    Passing legislation in this place does guarantee delivery outside. I have a particular problem in my constituency, as it took me several months to get recognition of the fact that a local authority was not delivering universal provision for four-year-olds. In the Charnock area of my constituency, not every four-year-old has the right to a nursery place because the local authority plan remains defective. Eventually, after badgering and support from the Minister who then had responsibility for pre-school education, the authority recognised the issue and started to address it by getting in a private sector provider. I am all in favour of that, as is the local primary school. There is no dissension at all about private enterprise coming in to fill a gap in public service provision.
    The problem is that, after months of wrangling between education officials and local planners—and now the local authority's property services people are trying to take their share by charging an extortionate amount for the land in question, which is in the green belt—we are still no further forward with nursery provision. Passing

    255
    legislation in Parliament does not guarantee provision on the ground. I urge Ministers to be more rigorous in following through in future when such gaps arise, and making sure that local authorities deliver in an extremely important service area.
    I support the proposals on crime in the Queen's Speech and give full backing to the tougher measures outlined to deal with it. I certainly welcome the commitment to additional police officers, for which my constituents regularly ask. Again, I shall raise one issue that, I hope, the Home Secretary will address. One of the most common problems that people raise in my surgery and at public meetings is anti-social behaviour on our estates, which is a genuine problem for many whose lives are blighted by the activities of a minority who have no idea what they are doing to the rest of the community—or perhaps they do and just do not care. The idea of the anti-social behaviour orders was a good one. It is right in principle and I am pleased that housing and local authority officials and the police are now working more closely together. The idea of giving responsibility for community safety to local authorities was a good one. Initially, there was much criticism that the orders were not being used—I was equally critical—but the more I hear from local authority officials and the police the more I realise that what was a good idea is difficult to put into practice, because of the way in which the orders were established. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has the same problems in his constituency, because it is next door to mine, and I ask him to reconsider that good idea. The principle does not need changing, but perhaps we should review the use of the orders, so that the police can use them more constructively and energetically than they have been able so far to do. Those are the sentiments of my local police officers, which they have expressed to me.
    Transport does not figure largely in the Queen's Speech, but it is mentioned to me regularly. The train service to Sheffield is not a first class service, even if the trains have first class carriages. Trains to Sheffield are much slower than those to the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, North, which take half an hour less to do the same distance. That is a real problem that has been created and worsened by privatisation and the fragmentation of rail services. We could get a quicker train service to Sheffield by either making track improvements to the midland main line or by having tilting trains that could go faster on the existing track. The problem is that one demands action by the operating company and the other demands action by Railtrack. The two never seem to come together, and no one has decided which is the best way forward. I hope that with the creation of the Strategic Rail Authority we will start to address that issue.
    I hope that we will also address the issue of whether the midland main line is the best line to take people to Sheffield. Perhaps the east coast line should be improved and given extra capacity, which would allow a quick line to Sheffield. The franchise for the east coast line is a completely different issue from the franchise for the midland line, but one or the other is the solution to Sheffield's problem. The problem with rail privatisation is the fragmentation of the industry and the lack of a strategic overview, and I hope that the SRA will begin to address those issues.
    256
    On the doorstep, my constituents raise the issue of buses even more frequently than that of rail, because buses are the day-to-day transport for most people in Sheffield. We have made many improvements to our public services in the past four years, and my constituents recognise that, but we have seen little improvement with buses. Indeed, it is questionable whether we are providing a public service at all in many cases. A duopoly has been created between Stagecoach and First Bus—or, as it is laughingly referred to in Sheffield, Secondhand Bus, because the quality of buses provided has deteriorated recently—-and if constituents complain about a bus service being removed, I can do nothing but say that it is purely a private decision with no real influence from the public sector.
    The Transport Act 2000 has not had time to have an effect. It will promote quality partnerships as the best way forward, but I am not convinced of that. I hope that Ministers will consider franchising, which is seen as a long-stop option in the Act, as the best approach. Unlimited public resources are not available for bus services, but franchising could be a solution. An operator would tender for an area and as well as receiving the right to provide services on profitable routes it would also have the obligation to provide services on less profitable or uneconomic routes. We could have a strategic view from the public sector, with the private sector delivering and having responsibilities as well as rights. I hope that we will come back to that idea in future.
    In South Yorkshire—and Sheffield is part of South Yorkshire—
    Mr. Kevin Hughes: Only just.
    Mr. Betts: We are part of South Yorkshire for objective I funding purposes, and we receive that funding as one of the poorest areas of the country with one of the highest levels of unemployment. It is therefore an absolute nonsense, when the standard spending assessments are decided and the grants given out, that our per capita grant should be below what is given to many more affluent parts of the country. That is not acceptable, and I am sure that all hon. Members with South Yorkshire constituencies are committed to fighting, for a change in the system. We respect and recognise what the Government did in their first term to improve the situation, but the system is still not fair. We will continue to fight for that fairness.
    The care of the elderly by local authorities still gives cause for concern. II has to be accepted that funding for that care is still too low. Under the caring Liberal Democrats, Sheffield city council has told those of my elderly constituents who cannot get in and out of the bath but who could use a shower if they had one that they cannot have money for the necessary alterations if they are able to have a strip wash. That is official council policy. I do not think that that is anything like first-class public service provision. It is a denial of people's basic human rights. That is something else that I want to challenge.
    I do not regard as anathema the proposal to bring the private sector into the provision of public services. In some cases, it is right to do so, but the public oppose

    257
    threats to privatise those tasks where public sector workers do a first-class job. That is what is happening with Sheffield's refuse collectors. Not only does such a move put a good public service at risk, but it says to public service workers that no account will be taken of how well they do their jobs when it comes to deciding whether they should continue to provide the service. That is worrying, and my colleagues in Sheffield and I will continue to speak out about it.
    Helen Jackson: Is the council Labour controlled?
    Mr. Betts: It is controlled by the Liberal Democrats. They opposed privatisation when the y came into power.
    I have always been concerned about housing. Like me, other hon. Members will have found, during the election campaign, that people understand that the Government have established the minimum wage and the working families tax credit, and that they have increased child benefit and created more jobs. On some estates, however, people live in homes and an environment that has not changed much.
    It is not that the Government have not made improvements: in the past four years, for example, Sheffield's housing capital budget has doubled, rising from £20 million to £40 million. The problem is that the repair backlog is so long that the work that is being done hardly scratches the surface.
    In my constituency—where the housing is by no means the worst in Sheffield—people still live in homes where the windows are warped, where water comes in through the roof and where there is no central heating. The Government's commitment to put all rented properties into a proper state of repair by 2010 is right, but it must not be assumed that, to achieve that, millions of people will automatically vote to transfer their homes to alternative landlords.
    In Sheffield, the reality is that people want to remain with the council, regardless of its failings and inadequacies. They believe, however, that remaining with the council should not prejudice their chances of having their homes put into a decent state of repair. That is a challenge for the Government to overcome.
    I favour the option of establishing companies wholly owned by local authorities. in whose management tenants could be involved. That is an exciting and attractive way forward, but the Government may have to be more flexible about how they allow private investment in such homes, as is the case with housing association properties. Tenants in Sheffield want a level playing field.
    There will be some very real challenges over the next four years. We have made an excellent start in many areas, and that is why we have been re-elected, but the electorate have made it clear that they want more to be done, as standards are not high enough yet. The Labour party's campaign theme was that much had been done, and much more remained to be done. There is much more to do to raise standards in our public services. That will be the challenge for the Government over the four or five years of this Parliament.
    6.9 pm
    Mr. Michael Jack: The hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts), freed now from the constraints of Trappist silence on the Front Bench,
    258
    reminds us, as have others, of the importance of delivering higher quality public services to the people whom we represent. Our constituents challenge us about the democratic process and ask how we represent them. When we tell them that we will make representations and fight for better services, for their road to be mended and all the other things that matter to them, but then fail to deliver, they switch off and say that the process is incapable of responding to their individual needs. That represents a major challenge for us as democrats. We must address the low turnout at the general election.
    As a member of the last Conservative Administration, it is important to put on record that the Conservative party was never against public services. [Laughter.] Labour Members laugh, but I will pick from what we introduced one example from which the Secretary of State for Health has benefited: the private finance initiative or public-private partnership. If it had not been for problems introducing one Bill, we too could have boasted achievements in that area in new hospital building. I wish that we had achieved that, but I congratulate him on taking a good idea forward and delivering what we all want for our constituents, which is improved public capital, whether for health, education, transport or other services. That idea was invented on our side of the House, not the other.
    It was the Conservative party that introduced local management for schools. In the Gracious Speech there are proposals further to devolve moneys back to schools. We pioneered that idea because we realised the importance of improving the delivery of education locally and that the way to achieve that was to give more responsibility financially to individual schools.
    It was the Conservative Government who put 16,000 more police officers into service to improve community safety. Sadly, we had some good ideas in the general election, but we may have talked a little too much about tax cuts and not enough about our good ideas for improving health and education. The Conservative party has some lessons to learn.
    In the House yesterday the Prime Minister talked about the extra teachers, doctors and others who, he claims, will deliver enhanced public services. I want to address whether that is possible by putting some of the numbers into perspective. We are told that the Government intend over the lifetime of this Parliament—not next year or the year after, but over the lifetime of this Parliament—to introduce 10,000 more teachers. The Library tells me that there are 204 education authorities. Over five years that represents on average just 10 extra teachers per authority. To apply the same logic to the 20,000 classroom assistants who are required, that works out at just 20 extra classroom assistants per year, per authority. [Interruption.].
    The Secretary of State for Health is mouthing something from a sedentary position, so I will move on to doctors. If two thirds of our 10,000 doctors go into the hospital sector, that represents 6,000 doctors. If that number is divided between our 500 health trusts, there will be two and a half new doctors per year per trust. When the same logic is applied to nurses, there will be just eight per year per health trust. That puts in perspective the Government's rhetoric. They are fond of throwing large numbers around in an attempt to convince the public that that alone is the solution to better quality

    259
    public services. I question where these people are to come from and whether they will be delivered in time. I suspect that we shall be disappointed.
    The Secretary of State for Health avoided the difficulties that he ran into on waiting lists. He said that waiting lists were out and waiting times were in. I noticed that he did not talk about outpatient waiting times—the time it takes to see a consultant.
    I looked at the figures year on year for the Blackpool Victoria hospital trust, our major acute trust, and I found that in 16 of the 20 specialties, there had been a dramatic increase in the number of weeks that patients had to wait to see a consultant. For example, in paediatrics there was a 69 per cent. increase in the number of weeks to see a consultant, in neurology 54 per cent., in cardiology 62 per cent., in care of the elderly 58 per cent. and in gynaecology 67 per cent.
    Have there been any improvements? Yes—remarkably, in orthopaedics there has been an improvement of 31 per cent. and in ophthalmology of 27 per cent. Why? Because those were the only two specialties affected by the clinical priority-distorting waiting list initiative. Those were the only two areas to benefit from extra resources, and some of those resources have now gone.
    People will want to see some improvement, but I doubt whether the Secretary of State will be able to deliver to the Blackpool Victoria hospital trust in the next four years the number of additional consultants necessary to meet those requirements. I hear staff at that hospital trust speaking about the differences between the hospital's financial situation and that of the local health authority, to the extent that the hospital is £1 million down on its budget.
    I hope that the Secretary of State and his colleague, the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton), will devise some way of avoiding brush wars between hospital trusts and health authorities when each side has a different view of funding. It is not a question of extra provision, but of providing the money to deliver even basic services, notwithstanding any improvements that might result—though I doubt it—from the Secretary of State's proposed Bill.
    On education, I had meetings with primary school heads before the election. I welcome the fact that the Government are committed to a report on red tape, but I see nothing in the Queen's Speech to deal with the shopping list according to which head teachers will judge whether there has been an improvement in public services. They agree that they have had more money than ever before, but they have had more work as well—too many assessments, no value-added tables, too much concentration on preparing children for tests, and not enough on education in the round, too much demand for planning, too many initiatives and too much prescriptiveness from the centre. Unless those problems are remedied, those teachers and the parents who speak to them will not perceive that there has been any improvement in education.
    What about the issue of popular schools? The Government have not tackled that. Many parents recognise quality and want to send their children to such schools, but there is nothing in the Gracious Speech to suggest how that trick is to be pulled. On secondary
    260
    education, I smiled wryly when I learned that the Government want more specialist schools. I already have one—the Lytham St. Anne's high technology college.
    I spoke to the head teacher, who is waiting to find out whether he will ever get a dining room big enough to accommodate more than one sixth of the children at any one time. He is worried because he does not have the funding to deliver the new AS curriculum. Because of the problems of his budget, he struggles to deal with educationally disturbed pupils. There has not been investment in the infrastructure of his school commensurate with the number of extra pupils going into that establishment. For him, the Bill announced in the Queen's Speech will be irrelevant. For the parents of children at that school, the Government's proposed measures will be irrelevant unless the issues on the shopping list are addressed.
    The problems fared by Lytham St. Anne's high technology college are faced by many other schools. The Gracious Speech offered no comfort as regards the future of that school's sixth form. The best that Labour could do in its manifesto was to promise that in real terms, funding would be maintained for sixth forms. There was no commitment to maintain sixth forms. When I wrote to the local learning and skills council to ask whether it had a policy on sixth forms, it could offer no policy and no guarantees.
    I shall deal finally with community safety. Many people judge the quality of our public services by the safety of the communities in which they live. We have spoken about police numbers. The increase in Lancashire will barely keep up with the number of officers retiring, and the number who are sick or on light duties means that the Lancashire force is 10 per cent. down on the numbers that it should have. In one ward in my constituency, Ingot, it is a struggle to provide one community beat officer, and when local people ark that officer to take action to deal with people who ought to be the subject of anti-social behaviour orders, the officer is hard pushed to keep up with the challenge. That story can be replicated over a large part of this gantry. I see little in the Queen's Speech to address the issue.
    There are three words about public services that we need to take into account: quality, responsiveness and customers. There are issues of quality. Some have talked about old people. I have seen many cases of run-down social services failing to serve the needs of the elderly. We need to improve quality in that respect.
    As I said at the beginning of my speech, we must learn to be more responsive if we are to understand how our public services can be improved. Above all, we must recognise that the people whom we represent are the customers of those services. We are not here to do them a favour; we are here to fight for the best public services for them. I shall certainly support measures to achieve that objective, but I see little real progress on that score in this Queen's Speech.
    6.20 pm
    Mr. Greg Pope: Like some other contributors to this debate, I have had a lengthy period of enforced silence. It is nice to find my voice again in this House. My last speech in this House was so long ago that I made it from the Opposition Benches. It was in a different era—so long ago that John Major was Prime Minister,

    261
    Blackburn Rovers played in Europe and the now right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Portillo) was a right winger.
    It gives me great pleasure to give a broad welcome to the Queen's Speech. It is right that the Government. as they begin their second term, should concentrate on the issues on which they won the general election: improving public services, getting extra investment into schools, hospitals and the police, and, crucially, reforming those services.
    One thing that surprised me when I was out campaigning in my constituency and in others last month was the sheer anger at the way in which some people are treated by those working in our public services. As someone who has always been a strong supporter of the police, I was particularly surprised at the anger among victims of crime over the way in which they are treated by the police force in Lancashire. Many constituents told me that, having been burgled, they had rung the police but the police did not seem to care and took a long time to visit them—sometimes not even on the same day. That is unacceptable. I therefore welcome the police Bill in the Queen's Speech.
    Of course we all want extra police officers. The right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) said that police numbers in Lancashire have been falling but that now they are going up again. That is good, but the matter is not just one of police numbers and money. We need to reform the culture of the service, consider greater civilianisation of the police and ask whether we have struck the right balance between the numbers of traffic police and those tackling burglaries, because I am not sure that we have in Lancashire.
    I am also pleased that there will be a Bill on House of Lords reform. That early pledge appeared in Labour's first manifesto 101 years ago, and we are just getting round to addressing it. I am not sure whether old Labour was very good at delivering on its early pledges.
    To a certain extent, the Government have done the politically easy part—from Labour's point of view—by proceeding with abolishing hereditary peers, and hurrah for that. What an anachronism they are in the 21st century. However, I issue a friendly warning to Government Front Benchers. Getting rid of hereditaries is one thing, but it is much harder to build a consensus on what should replace the House of Lords in the second stage of reform. I am not terribly convinced by the proposals on offer.
    I have always preferred a unicameral Parliament, which would have a couple of immediate good effects. The first would be to enhance at a stroke the status of this House, about which hon. Members have been complaining for years. Secondly, it would stop the Government—I do not mean my Government but any Government—introducing badly drafted legislation. There is a temptation for Governments to do so—I was a bit of an expert on this about a year ago—when they know that they have the backstop of the House of Lords to change the Bill.
    How many times have hon. Members served on Standing Committees, scruitinised legislation for weeks or even months, seen the Bill go off to the other place to return unrecognisable and be given only one day on the Floor of the House to discuss Lords amendments? That is not a sensible way of scrutinising legislation in a modern democracy and we should change it.
    262
    The other reason why I am worried about House of Lords reform is that I do not want people to be appointed to my Parliament. My hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Hughes) said that he opposed an elected second Chamber, but I take a different view. I am completely in favour of a wholly elected second Chamber with prescribed powers. Such a Chamber might operate like a small senate. It does our democracy no good if Parliament has Members who are not accountable to the people, so we should consider the alternatives.
    On Europe, I welcome the announcement of a Bill to ratify the treaty of Nice. I am very keen for the European Union to be enlarged. I also want the British Government to have a greater say in the Council of Ministers, which will be achieved through the re-weighting of votes. As a friendly criticism, I point out to my Government that those of us who want the single currency to succeed have been disappointed by how timorous they have been about promoting the concepts of Europe and the single currency. We are not winning the political argument; indeed, we have not even engaged in such an argument on the single currency. We are in a strong position only because of the utter uselessness of the Conservatives in adopting their ridiculous "Only 12 days to save the pound" campaign two weeks before polling day. That was nonsense and people knew it, but the issue is nevertheless going by default. I welcome what my right hon. Friend the Chancellor said yesterday, but I want the Government to adopt a much stronger tone in making the case for Europe as a whole and the single currency in particular.
    On education, we have made some great steps forward in the primary sector. Standards are going up, class sizes are falling and investment is going in throughout my constituency. There is a welcome building programme, which is a tangible sign of our investment in public services. However, surely the time has come to make such a step change in the secondary sector.
    I have a couple of particular worries about education, the first of which concerns specialist schools. I have no problem with such schools and am proud that a school with technology college status, the Hollins, is situated in my constituency, but I am worried about the idea of capping their number. As they are a good idea and there are objective criteria, why cannot every school aspire to be a specialist school? My second concern relates to admissions. Admissions policy is in an absolute mess throughout my constituency, and I am sure that the same applies throughout Lancashire and many other local education authority areas. In my constituency, children who live cheek by jowl with their local schools are being offered places at schools that are situated eight miles away, which is completely unacceptable. I am sure that the education Bill will deal with admissions, on which I hope that the Government will get a grip.
    I am pleased that we will have a free vote on foxhunting, about which hundreds of people have written to me to express their dismay. I could not explain to them how a Government with a majority of 178 did not manage to ban foxhunting, and they will be even more dismayed if a Government with a similar majority fail to ban it in a second term. I say to the Government that a free vote is one thing, but once such a vote has occurred, a Bill must be introduced at an early opportunity. They must have the political will and courage to use the Parliament Acts to force through the will of the House of Commons on foxhunting.

    263
    I want briefly to make a couple of further points, the first of which returns me to the speech that I made nine years ago when I entered the House. The speech dealt with housing in my constituency. The truth is that many of my constituents have been failed by us and by the previous Administration. I met a woman who lives in a house that is practically falling down. There are thousands—if not tens of thousands—of such people in my constituency. She told me that she was not going to vote and felt that she had been let down 10 years ago by a Tory Government and a Labour council, and now, when there is a Labour Government and a Tory council. Her house is a disgrace in the modern age, and we must not walk away from such people. I am pleased to be a voice for her in demanding that Lord Falconer visit my constituency in the near future.
    My final point may be surprising, given that I spent the past four years as a Government Whip and the preceding two as an Opposition Whip. I believe that the House of Commons matters greatly. I do not want the Chamber to be sidelined; it should be at the heart of national political debate. I welcome the Hansard Society report that was published earlier this week. It contained some interesting ideas and made a welcome contribution to the debate, although I did not agree with all the conclusions. However, it is important to reinvigorate the House if we are to stand any chance of re-engaging with the electorate before the next general election. I look forward to participating in that process.
    6.30 pm
    Dr. Liam Fox: I welcome Ministers with new responsibilities to the Front Bench and congratulate those who have been promoted. I welcome back the Secretary of State for Health. I do not entirely envy him the task ahead, although I cannot say the same about the salary.
    We were treated to two maiden speeches this afternoon. The first was made by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mr. Lazarowicz), who spoke confidently. He intimated in the Tea Room that he was nervous; he did not show it. His predecessor was never afraid of holding the Executive to account, and I am sure that he wants to maintain the independent stance of both his immediate predecessors, although I hope that he never runs up the repair bills of Ron Brown. He told us that he had been a resident in Edinburgh for 25 years. As someone who comes from the west of Scotland but did general practitioner training outside Edinburgh. I can tell him that it will be another 25 years before he can apply for native status.
    We also heard the maiden speech of the hon. Member for Mid—Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke), who paid tribute to her predecessor, Christopher Fraser. He quickly established a reputation in the House for good humour and authority. Many Conservative Members will miss him as a friend as well as a colleague. I hope that the hon. Lady enjoys the same success and popularity. However, she will understand that it would be disingenuous of me to wish her a longer tenure than her predecessor.
    The hon. Lady made an important point that is relevant to many areas, especially in the west and south-west of England, about the area cost adjustment and the amount
    264
    of local government finance that is made available. I am sure that a strong cross-party alliance will press for a review of the method of allocating money, especially to rural areas in those parts of the country.
    Many good contributions were made from both sides of the House. My right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) gave one of the best speeches of the day. He spoke graphically about the human cost of the foot and mouth outbreak. He reminded us that when media attention had moved elsewhere and the general election campaign was in full swing, the suffering continued and still goes on. His explanation brought that home to the whole House.
    My right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis) talked about the importance of choice in public services and the need to give parents, patients and professionals greater freedom to decide what is best, free from the dead hand of Whitehall.
    The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle) criticised omissions from the Gracious Speech at length. He said that, in the next election campaign, the Government could make no excuses for failing to deliver and that prompt action should be taken. I noticed that the Government Whip avidly took notes during that speech.
    The hon. Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Hughes) showed us that old Labour had not disappeared, but was merely asleep in the Whips Office for four years. He said, "We must find out where the money is being spent before we pour in any more." That statement alone would almost qualify him as a contender for the Tory leadership.
    I welcome my friend, the hon. Member for Hyndburn (Mr. Pope), to a speaking role. We now have a chance in the House to savour his humour, which we have appreciated in the watering holes of the Palace of Westminster in recent years. His disarming honesty about our methods of legislating and running our affairs was refreshing. We look forward to much more of the same.
    Almost all hon. Members who spoke agreed that the Parliament will be about delivery in public services. The Government must provide world class public services by the next election. That does not simply mean better or good public services, but services that can compete with the best in the world.
    On health, we must get our targets right above all else. We cannot provide effective services if we cannot decide what we are trying to achieve. Since the inception of the national health service, we have concentrated on input and throughput, and the political argument has been about that. We need to base our targets on outcome. I ask the Secretary of State to consider the need to standardise the methodology of determining outcome in the NHS before we can ensure that our funding is correctly invested. If we do not know what is coming out of the service, and if we cannot measure it properly, we shall largely be working in the dark, irrespective of how much funding we are going to put into the system.
    I turn to the proposals in the Gracious Speech. It contains measures that we shall, of course, welcome—not least those on adoption. We are keen to see the envisaged provisions on adoption brought to fruition as quickly as possible, but I stress that all the measures will need proper scrutiny. The Bill will raise many important issues, not least those relating to social services, which will be asked to do much more than they do now. It will be essential to match the tasks being asked of them with the funding

    265
    being guaranteed to them. Nothing could be worse than this House deciding what needs to be done to protect the most vulnerable—in the consensual way that we shall, on this subject—and the money not being available to bring the measures into effect. The House must consider that very carefully. Indeed, the issue of social services provision in general will need to be assessed.
    The No. 1 crisis facing the health service at present is that of the number of beds being lost in the care home sector and the consequent number of beds being blocked in the acute sector. Up and down the country, between 10 and 15 per cent. of acute beds are being blocked. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon pointed out, it would be pointless to pour money into the acute sector if there were no beds available in the community to which patients could be discharged. If that were to happen, any increase in money and activity in the acute sector would, paradoxically, block more beds and exacerbate the problems of patients who were waiting.
    The Government could, now that they are free from the yah-boo politics of the immediate pre-election period, stand back and consider whether the balance is correct between the level of acute funding and the level of community funding envisaged in the increases set out in the Red Book. That would be a useful initial exercise for them to undertake, and I would say that it is their most urgent task of all.
    We were delighted that, immediately after the election, the Secretary of State for Health broke the record for any Government implementing one of the main planks of the Opposition's manifesto by abolishing the waiting list criteria. He did this immediately after the election and just after the announcement of the increase in the number of patients waiting. Those points were raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young), who spoke of the difficulty of reconciling the Government's stated aims with their actions, which results in increased anger among professionals and patients. General practitioners and consultants are up in arms and threatening to leave the NHS. They say that there is too much red tape, that consultation times have gone down and that they have too little clinical freedom. Those themes were also taken up by the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth).
    My right hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) also took this view into the field of education, when he spoke of the gap between the Government's rhetoric on education and the reality in the schools in his constituency. The Government will have to address the fact that the huge level of expectation raised during the election has made their job more difficult.
    We shall have to look closely at the Government's proposals on two health issues in the Gracious Speech. They want to increase patient representation. In an Orwellian doublespeak way, that means the abolition of the community health councils. I have to say to the Secretary of State that that proposal is no more palatable in this Parliament than it was in the previous one. We might as well look out our notes on that issue, because we are going to have to rehearse all the same arguments all over again. I urge him to think again on that issue.
    When the Secretary of State talked about decentralisation, he was moving into the Government's realm of earned autonomy. Earned autonomy means, "You can do what you like, as long as you have agreed
    266
    in advance with the Government what it is going to be." That does not strike me as the sort of decentralisation that those at the sharp end of the services want.
    It is also interesting to note what is not in the Gracious Speech. The absence of a ban on tobacco advertising has been mentioned throughout the debate by hon. Members on both sides of the House. Conservative Members never agreed that that was as important as the Government said it was, but if the Government were as sincere as they said they were, it is odd that the provision was not in the Queen's Speech.
    The real scandal of omission in the Gracious Speech is that there is no mention of mental health legislation. At the 1997 election, the Labour party said that that was a matter of great urgency, yet nothing was done in its first term and there is nothing in the Gracious Speech. That means that the Government will be at least seven and a half years into their term of office before any changes are made to one of the most important aspects of our legislation. I say to the Secretary of State that that is far too long to wait for a review. We have been promised one year after year and, if the Government can still find time, the Opposition will be as co-operative as possible in dealing with issues that are extremely difficult, but which none the less need to be addressed as a matter of urgency.
    I would also be interested to hear the Secretary of State's view on the omission of the moratorium on genetic testing, which the Government talked about during the election and before. For them, however, the defining issue in terms of delivery of public services will perhaps be the involvement of the private sector. We need to move from the simple concept of public services to the concept of services provided to the public, and we must use whatever skills, expertise and capacity are available to improve services.
    We have all read in the papers that there is a difference of opinion between No. 10 and the Department of Health about the speed at which those matters should move forward. No doubt the instant memoirs industry will tell us which version is correct, but it is important to improve the delivery of public services by using the private sector wherever possible. We have discussed the private finance initiative, and the quality of PFI contracts is determined by how well they are negotiated, but it is also extremely important that the Government are honest about their intentions.
    I was with the former Minister of State for Health at the Royal College of Nursing conference when he again said that the Government's concordat is about NHS doctors and NHS nurses treating NHS patients in private facilities where there is excess capacity. That is an extraordinarily disingenuous view of what the concordat says. It refers to
    "Primary care groups or Primary Care Trusts commissioning directly from a private and voluntary health care provider."
    In other words, it is possible entirely to bypass clinical provision in the NHS.
    The Government should at least be honest about what they propose, because nothing could be worse in such a debate than them pretending to their own Back Benchers that they have agreed one thing when here we have, in black and white, something quite different. If they do not have the truth told, we will never be able to have an honest debate.

    267
    I would like to hear the Secretary of State's view on a matter that is, perhaps, more important than any other. Over recent days, many of us will have read with alarm newspaper reports such as that in The Sunday Times money section entitled, "Labour scraps free nursing care pledge". What the Government proposed was explicit in the national plan and in their contributions to Committee debates, which the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) will remember. Section 15:18 of the national plan says:
    "From October 2001 … nursing care provided in nursing homes will be fully funded by the NHS. People should not be asked to contribute towards the cost of their nursing care".
    Now we realise that all sorts of caveats will be placed on that and that people will be asked, according to some means test, to provide a part—greater or lesser, depending on where or in which part of the country they live—of their nursing care.
    The report in The Sunday Times added:
    "The Department of Health said yesterday that no formal decision had yet been made."
    There can be no room for confusion, however, and the Government's pledge was absolutely, totally, 100 per cent. clear. We supported them in Committee and in the House of Lords on the understanding that all nursing care would be fully funded and any backtracking on that will be regarded as the most brazen betrayal of elderly voters ever undertaken by any Government in a general election.
    The Government won a clear victory in the general election, and there would be no point in going over in the coming months the arguments that we had before the election. They have a large parliamentary majority and a parliamentary programme, and what we legislate on is entirely in their hands for the next four years, but they have raised both expectations and questions about their intentions.
    It is time for Ministers to give straight answers to the questions raised from both sides of the House during the debate, if we are to be able to believe that spin is out and delivery is in. For the meantime, the jury is most definitely out.
    6.44 pm
    The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Alan Milburn): This has been an extremely constructive and positive debate about the future of public services.
    First and most importantly of all, let me pay tribute to the two hon. Members who made their maiden speeches today, not just for the quality of their contributions but for their bravery in making them so early in their parliamentary careers. The hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke) paid an extremely handsome and fulsome tribute to her predecessor. Perhaps her only omission was her refusal to mention the one person whom many people regard as being responsible for getting her elected: a certain Mr. Billy Bragg.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mr. Lazarowicz) also made an important contribution. He has had a long and successful career in local government and I have no doubt whatever that he will make a long and successful contribution to the proceedings of the House. In highlighting Labour's
    268
    achievements in its first term, he reminded us of how far we have to go in both reforming and investing in our key public services.
    This debate has been overwhelmingly about health and education—necessarily. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham) said in a rather philosophical speech—I shall read the details of it later and hopefully understand it more than I did the first time round—the priority for the Government in this second term is to reform all our key public services, not just health and education but transport, the police and welfare services.
    As my hon. Friends the Members for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle), for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts) and for Hyndburn (Mr. Pope) rightly said, strong public services are the foundation for a strong society, in which there are opportunities not just for some people but for all our citizens and all our communities.
    I suspect that, for many of my hon. Friends, it is a delicious irony that the official Opposition chose for this first full day's debate on the Queen's Speech the very subject that they spent virtually the whole of the general election campaign ignoring, namely health and education. That point was made by the right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack). I can only conclude that, during the election campaign, their minds were more concentrated on the forthcoming election campaign than on the outcome of the general election.
    At one point, I became worried about the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) because he seemed to have disappeared from view. He disappeared from the television studios and I searched up and down the country for him. Indeed, I went to his constituency and took with me a 10 ft wooden trojan horse as a reminder of his policy on health: private health insurance rather than investment in the national health service. However, I could not find him there either.
    The hon. Gentleman brags that his majority went up, but the majority in the country went one way. We know that we have a job of work to do, but he should know—I hope that he draws this important lesson from the general election campaign—that the Conservatives were not trusted in 1997 on public services and they were not trusted in 2001 either. I hope that he survives the trials and tribulations of the forthcoming leadership election campaign. That would be good news for him; it would be rather better news for us because he and his hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench—and, I suspect from some of the contributions that we heard today, on the Opposition Back Benches too—are responsible for the parlous state in which today's Conservative party finds itself. That is because of the paucity of their policies on public services.
    The issue of public services is what concerns people the most. The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) talks about delivery. I agree that people are concerned about delivery and we know that we have a job of work to do. However, what was interesting about this afternoon's debate is that we heard so much, including from the hon. Member for Woodspring, about problems in the national health service and so little about how to make progress in the NHS.
    The right hon. Member for Fylde made a good speech. He talked down the number of doctors and of nursing posts that we shall create over the next few years. There

    269
    will be 10,000 more doctors and 20,000 more nurses, as well as lots more teachers and police officers. I hope that he has had the opportunity to read his manifesto and to draw some conclusions from it. Whereas our manifesto promises extra doctors and nurses, his promises not a single extra nurse or doctor. As I understand it, it did not promise a single extra police officer or teacher either. That is because the Conservatives made a different choice. We chose to put the public's priorities first—to put investment in, and reform of, the national health service, the education system, transport and the police service first. As he fairly concluded in his speech, the Conservatives put something else first: they put unaffordable tax cuts first, and they got the result that they deserved.
    Dr. Fox: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way, as time is limited. He referred to extra doctors, teachers and nurses. What is his definition of the word "extra"? Does it mean more than trend or more than previously planned? Will they be full-time? Will it be a net increase?
    Mr. Milburn: Extra means on top of the position in 2000. We have not done the count for 2001 yet—we carry out an annual census in September, and we shall publish the results of that. I am extremely confident that we shall continue to make progress in recruiting and retaining extra doctors and extra nurses.
    Dr. Fox: Is it net?
    Mr. Milburn: There will a net increase of 10,000 doctors and 20,000 nurses. Conservative Front-Bench Members have no right to complain about the lack of ambition—as the right hon. Member for Fylde called it—of our targets in our manifesto, given that they promised not a single extra doctor or a single extra nurse.
    Mr. Jack: Does the Secretary of State agree that he is now responsible for delivering those extra public servants? Does he also agree with me that if the numbers of extra staff are spread out across the nation, there will be few per health unit, per police station or per school? He will have to make any progress that he makes very clear if the public are to believe the rhetoric. As my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) said, there is a gulf between the Secretary of State's rhetoric and what we believe will be the reality.
    Mr. Milburn: The public will see further expansion in staff numbers. There must be an increase in the number of staff working at the front line in the national health service. We need more doctors and nurses, clinical scientists and physiotherapists, and we need more backroom staff, who provide essential services in order that front-line staff can do their job and improve services for patients. We can do that only if we make the right choices as a country and as political parties. The choice that we made was to provide investment. The choice that the Conservative party made was completely different. I was pleased to see the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) present earlier. He will be a constant reminder of the Conservative party's real agenda on public services, which is not extra investment, but cuts.
    I know how far we have to go. I am a great supporter of the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis). I do not know whether that is a help or a
    270
    hindrance to him—it is another lost vote. He made important points about the progress that we need to make on clinical negligence, infections in hospitals and expansion in services. Importantly, he made a crucial point about what we need to do about the culture of the NHS and other public services. They must be attuned to the needs of the public. The only vested interest that should count in the national health service is that of the patient. The only vested interest that should count in schools is that of the pupil and the parent. That is where we need to get to.
    There is a long way to go. I have acknowledged on many occasions that there are problems in the health service and that NHS staff are working under real pressure, but it paints a false picture always to allow the problems to obscure the progress that has been made during the past four years. We now have 17,000 more nurses and 6,500 more doctors. We have a hospital building programme that is delivering hospitals rather than just extra cash for accountants and lawyers. We have put more investment into primary care and community services. My hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Hughes) asked about the expansion in GP numbers, as did the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth). During the next few years, we expect to have at least 2,000 extra GPs working in surgeries up and down the country. By 2005, we will have increased the number of medical students by 57 per cent., which is the biggest rise on record and a guarantee of expansion in doctor numbers not just for a few years but for a decade or more. All that is underpinned by the extra resources demanded by the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young), not just for health but for social services.
    As my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley) reminded us, there is much progress still to be made, especially in the poorer parts of the country, where we know that health needs are greatest and resources have not always matched those needs. It is because of that knowledge that I can tell him and, indeed, Members on both sides of the House who have made the point about distribution of resources that we will conduct an urgent review to ensure that resources are better for, and more fairly distributed to, the parts of the country that need them most. I trust that that will be helpful, at least at this stage. I do not know whether the outcome of the review will be helpful, following its publication, but it will at least be helpful in assessing where health needs are greatest and trying to direct resources in that direction.
    Dr. Evan Harris: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves the subject of NHS staff, will he clarify one point? Previously, he has given assurances that under private finance initiative schemes clinical staff would still be employed by the NHS. Can he assure us again that, under PFI schemes and other privatisations, clinical staff delivering services to NHS patients will still be employed by the NHS?
    Mr. Milburn: Yes. What is more—as the hon. Gentleman may be aware from our manifesto—we want to find ways of ensuring that better and fairer protection is given to staff who provide an important service and are, in many ways, part of the clinical team. I refer to the porters on the wards, the cleaners on the wards, the cooks, and those who provide laundry services. A few days ago,

    271
    alongside my right hon. Friends the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, I was able to announce ways in which I hope we can secure the continued involvement of those staff members, as NHS employees, in PFI deals. We will trial that. We will try to make it work. I think it important to emphasise the importance of team working in the NHS.
    Over the next few years, we will focus our activity on four key areas. The first covers services for conditions with the greatest clinical priority. That includes services for cancer and heart disease, services for the elderly, and services for those with mental health problems. They were mentioned by the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) and by the hon. Member for Woodspring. The second covers primary care, the point of contact that most patients have with the NHS. The third covers emergency care, the point of contact that patients most need to know is there for them when they require it. The fourth relates to cutting waiting times. Those will be our priorities: those services will receive the most investment and the most reform.
    More money is now going into the NHS, but, as Members on both sides of the House have acknowledged today, not just investment but reform is required to secure the best from those extra resources. We have a mandate for investment following the general election, but we also have a mandate for reform. There can be no veto on either investment or reform.
    I say in all candour to the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris), who is now the Liberal Democrat health spokesman—I welcome him to his position—that the Liberal Democrats will make a fatal mistake if they close their minds to change. Our services need not just extra cash, but some big changes. We must
    272
    change the culture of public services. We must ensure that those at the front end have the resources, power and influence that will enable them to deliver care to patients and education to pupils. That is what we have sought to do in the Queen's Speech, and what we will seek to do in the Bill that will follow.
    In our first term, we established new national standards and new institutions to realise them. In our second term, with that framework in place, our priority is to devolve power to the NHS front line—to give the people who do the caring the cash and control that they need to improve services for patients For all the talk that we hear from those on the Opposition Front Bench, it is worth remembering that when the Conservatives left office GPs working in primary care controlled just 15 per cent. of the NHS budget—just 15 per cent. of the total NHS resource. This year, GPs and others in primary care groups and primary care trusts control 50 per cent. of the NHS budget. As a consequence of the measures in the Queen's Speech, by 2004 they will control 75 per cent.
    The national health service relies on the commitment and expertise of those in the front line—its doctors, nurses, scientists and therapists, and its cooks and cleaners too. Our job in government is to give them the resources and support that they need, so that they can get on with their job of improving care for patients. That is what this Queen's Speech—
    It being Seven o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
    Debate to be resumed tomorrow.

    THE SPEAKER'S ABSENCE
    Resolved,
    That the Speaker have leave of absence on Monday 25th June to attend the funeral of His Eminence Cardinal Thomas J. Winning, DCL, STL, DD, late Archbishop of Glasgow. —[Mr. Kemp.]

    Heart Disease (Young People)
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn —[Mr. Kemp.]
    7 pm
    Dr. Julian Lewis: It is with some trepidation that I rise to address the House on the question of cardiac risk in the young, or sudden death syndrome. I say "trepidation" because it is a subject on which I am by no means an expert. Therefore, I am grateful to see that a number of colleagues are nevertheless remaining for the debate.
    I wish to do justice to a fine young man whom I am proud to have as one of my constituents. His name is Adrian Woodhead. Adrian was married to Sarah and they were together for 10 years until, in 1997, just before Christmas, Sarah, who at the age of 28 had never been ill, had been very fit and was a non-smoker, suffered a massive heart seizure and died.
    Adrian and Sarah had been hoping to start a family soon. He has movingly written to me about his feelings after that tragedy:
    "I expected the house to be full of noise and life, as you get from children, not silent through death and loneliness … There is no structure to my life except for my work and my efforts to ensure that someone else might not have to go through this … I can do things for other people, but I can do nothing for myself."
    Indeed, Adrian does a great deal for other people. At the time of the tragedy, he was an assembly line worker at Ford's. Since then, with great grit and determination, he has retrained as a police constable. When he passed out, he was awarded a baton of honour. He is a passionate exponent of the need to warn people about sudden death syndrome and its risk for the young These are the three areas that Adrian has drawn to my attention: the need to raise awareness, the need for screening and the need for research. I shall address those in turn.
    On the need to raise awareness, it is estimated that at least four young people in the United Kingdom die every week from sudden death syndrome; that is more than 200 tragedies every year. There is a great need to raise awareness among the public, so that, in those cases where symptoms begin to show themselves, they will be not lightly dismissed but investigated.
    There is a need to raise awareness among general practitioners, so that, when young people go to see GPs with telling but not very severe warning symptoms, the GPs will act perhaps a bit more promptly than they do at present. In particular, GPs should be inquiring more whether other members of the family of the young person concerned have died young from heart failure, heart seizure or some other aspect of sudden death syndrome. If there is some history of that in tile family, the young people should be screened.
    There is a need for greater awareness on the part of coroners. All too often, when tragedies happen and young people die unexpectedly, the cause of death is given as accidental, natural causes or even, incorrectly, epilepsy.
    The great problem with sudden death syndrome—cardiac risk in the young, or whatever one chooses to call it—is that one does not usually see it coming, and when it happens it is too late. Screening is common policy for cervical smears and for breast tests. With such conditions people can see the disease coming and screening is
    274
    accepted as a technique. It is a fact that an ordinary electrocardiogram will pick up the majority of the conditions constituting sudden death syndrome.
    After the detection of such a condition, various prospects open up. There is the prospect of remedial action by implant, the prospect of remedial action by drugs, or the prospect of remedial action by changing one's life style. However, even in cases in which nothing is going to work and a fatal outcome cannot be averted, at least those who are subject to the genes responsible for those conditions can prepare themselves and their families for what will come, in the same way that families can prepare themselves when a child has a known terminal illness. People can do things now rather than postpone them, and they can choose what to do about whether to pass on the gene by having children.
    Sudden death syndrome is a composite term for 10 main conditions. Hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, or HCM, accounts for about 30 per cent. of the cases; arrythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy, or ARVC, accounts for about 20 per cent. of cases; and long QT syndrome accounts for another 10 per cent. Of those three categories, which account for 60 per cent. of the cases generically known as SDS, four fifths would be detected by ordinary electrocardiogram screening. If they were caught, the very least action that would be taken would be an echocardiogram—known as an ECHO—which is an ultrasound of the heart.
    More than half of the 200-plus young people who die so tragically every year could be saved by medical intervention and change of life style, particularly because so many of those who die are very active. They are particularly likely to be engaged in serious and energetic sport, and sometimes they are engaged in professional sport. I recognise that we are talking about very serious conditions and that between one quarter and one third of those who are vulnerable will die regardless. In other words, between one quarter and one third of the 200-plus people who die each year from the conditions will probably suffer the same outcome regardless of whether their condition has been diagnosed in advance. Nevertheless, as I said, it is vital that people know what they have to contend with.
    In professional tennis there is something called the Karen Krantzke sportsmanship award. It is given in memory of Karen Krantzke, an Australian doubles player who died at about age 30, in the mid-1970s, at the height of her powers. A friend of hers was Mrs. Alison Cox, who is the wife of Mark Cox—who as we all know was the No. 1 British tennis player in the 1970s.
    In 1992, Mark and Alison's son Steven went to college in America on a sports scholarship. A few years earlier, a young man had died at that college from an SDS condition. Fearing future litigation, the college initiated a programme of automatic screening for young people on its intensive sports programmes. Consequently, it was discovered that Steven Cox, who was himself on the verge of a glittering tennis career, was suffering potentially from ARVC. Following that discovery and his decision to change his life style and forgo the professional tennis career that would otherwise have undoubtedly been his, he is still healthy at the age of 27, and it may well be that he owes his life to that screening in America.
    It occurred to Alison Cox that not much had happened between the tragedy of Karen Krantzke in the mid-1970s and her own son's narrow escape in 1992, so she set up

    275
    Cardiac Risk in the Young, which aims to raise awareness and to exert pressure for more screening, in the hope that conditions here will begin to match those in other parts of the world. For example, in this country there are only 17 implants per 1 million citizens. In Germany, there are more than 60, and in America more than 200.
    The aim of CRY is to identify, screen and treat those most at risk: first, those in whose family there has been a death at a young age, and secondly, those who are engaged in serious sport. Its ultimate aim is the routine screening of those who participate in any serious sport, as is the case in Italy. So far, CRY's pilot programmes to test the effectiveness of ECG machines in detecting hidden heart conditions in young people have led to the placing of 26 machines in local communities, worth a total of £130,000. The organisation has also funded a £120,000 ECHO machine, which is needed for heart ultrasound—the vital next step after an ECG has detected the possibility of an SDS defect in a young person.
    Section 64 of the Health Services and Public Health Act 1968 gives the Secretary of State power to make discretionary grants to voluntary organisations in England working in support of health objectives of which the Government approve. CRY has tried five times to get a grant for its important work, and I wonder whether the Minister will be able to give us any encouragement and lead us to hope that a future application will be more successful.
    Adrian's third point concerned the need for the research. I have referred briefly to implants. Internal cardiac defibrillators, or ICDs, kick-start a heart that has gone into seizure and regulate it after the attack. Five years ago, they were the size of half a brick; now they are the size of a matchbox. Five years ago, they required major surgery; now they can be implanted under local anaesthetic. Five years ago, they had to be sited deep in the stomach; now they are sited very near the surface, just below the collar bone, so that they can easily be tweaked, adjusted and serviced as required.
    Drugs to thin the blood and prevent clotting are another form of medical intervention. Is the Minister satisfied that enough is being done to increase the number of implants that are being supplied, which would have to be tripled to match the number in Germany, and that enough research is being done on drugs to alleviate the dangers?
    We must also consider genetic research. One of the objections to screening is the expense of ECGs and ECHO tests. I would be grateful if the Minister would indicate whether progress is being made on identifying a simple blood test for the gene that causes those syndromes. Does she accept that if that could be done, the expense argument against screening would fall? If so, would some of her objections to screening be overcome?
    I am coming to the end of my remarks, but refer to a letter that the Minister wrote to Earl Howe on 8 May. It is clearly designed to be helpful, but at one point it states that studies show that
    "screening does not identify all those affected"—
    by SDS—
    "and also that there is little evidence at present that treatment before the onset of symptoms alters the course of the disease."
    I feel that the Minister has been supplied with information that may be a little out of date. As we have seen, implants can make a considerable difference to significant numbers
    276
    of people surviving an attack of that sort. It is true that sometimes there are symptoms before a potentially fatal attack but, all too often, they are not recognised, either by the potential victim or by his or her GP.
    There remains the question about the ethics of screening and whether or not it is a good thing. In the country as a whole, 10,000 to 15,000 people may be at risk, whereas "only" 200-plus per year will suffer the fatal outcome. There remains the ethical question whether it is right to worry the large number to save some of the small number. I believe that the evidence is in the affirmative. Alison Cox told me that of the hundreds of people affected by cardiac risk with whom she has dealt, only one mother said that she wished she had not known that her child was vulnerable. I am glad to say that, so far, her child has not suffered an attack; long may that continue.
    The final word on the ethics of screening should go to Adrian Woodhead, the young man to whom I referred at the beginning of my speech. He told me:
    "I'd have loved to have had a couple of children with Sarah: even if I'd known they'd have been with me for a limited time. It doesn't matter what condition you have—you just deal with it. But to deal with it, you've got to know."
    On Adrian's behalf and on behalf of all the young people who are vulnerable to the condition, I hope that the Minister will have something positive to say this evening.
    7.18 pm
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Yvette Cooper): I congratulate the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) on securing an early Adjournment debate in the new parliamentary Session and on choosing to bring these important issues to the attention of the House. He spoke movingly about the plight of his constituent and his constituent's family. This is an area that does not always get the attention that it deserves, but one that can be devastating for families when an apparently fit and healthy young person suddenly dies without warning. In an age when we have come to associate death with old age, rather than youth, young people being struck down before their potential is fulfilled, without the time for people to adjust and say goodbye, can be almost too much to bear for grieving families, including parents who lose loved children and young people.
    I pay tribute to the dedicated work of Cardiac Risk in the Young and, indeed, other voluntary organisations that provide a counselling network to help families who suffer such a loss. Support from people with real experience of the condition can certainly be a remarkable comfort to those who live on.
    CRY and other organisations with an interest in the conditions have made a plea for greater awareness of risk factors among health professionals. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the need to increase awareness and to provide more information. I agree wholeheartedly with the importance of doing so and I have asked officials to investigate the potential for using the new media that are now available to us for communicating with health professionals and members of the public— including, for example, NHS Online and the electronic library for health—to provide updated information about risk factors.
    Unfortunately, data on the true incidence of cardiomyopathy are hard to come by. Some studies put the incidence of hypertrophic cardiomyopathy at one

    277
    person in 500. That is one of the problems that we encounter when we assess a proper policy response to the condition. Too little is known in many areas. As the hon. Gentleman rightly pointed out, little is known about the number of deaths caused by cardiomyopathies. The Office for National Statistics recorded 35 deaths due to sudden adult death syndrome in 1999, but this is almost certainly an underestimate. I take seriously his point about the problems with the coroner system and the inability to make a full inspection of the heart tissue in a post mortem following a sudden adult death. He may be aware that the Home Office has announced a full review of the antiquated coroner system, which includes public health specifically in its terms of reference. I shall ensure that the points raised this evening are passed on to that review.
    Research is being carried out at the Imperial college school of medicine under Professor David Woods into the incidence of sudden adult death syndrome, and I believe that the research will be published later this year. We look forward to its conclusions to enlighten the policy process further.
    The hon. Gentleman mentioned a national screening programme of young people to identify those with cardiomyopathy and those who are at increased risk of sudden death, and CRY has also done a lot of work on that issue. The national screening committee has looked at those proposals very carefully. For a screening programme to be practicable, there needs to be a clear means of defining cases of the disease and the ability to make a prognosis on the basis of that definition. In addition, there needs to be good evidence that early intervention can improve the prognosis. In other words, we need evidence that a national screening programme would make a real difference to health outcomes rather than simply provide information that might have no impact on those outcomes.
    In 1999, the Department's national screening committee commissioned Dr. Stuart Logan of the Institute of Child Health to examine the feasibility of population screening for hypertrophic cardiomyopathy. His recommendation was that population screening would not meet those key criteria. He argued that the most commonly used case definition—left ventricular hypertrophy on echocardiography—would miss some people at risk and would identify significant numbers of people whose life span is likely to be no different from that of the general population. He also concluded that studies have suggested that starting treatment before the onset of symptoms—the point that the hon. Gentleman quoted from my letter—makes no difference to the course of the disease. In other words, no clear benefit would accrue to those told as a result of screening that they had a particular condition. Dr. Logan' s conclusions were accepted and endorsed by the national screening committee.
    Similarly, the role of genetic screening for hypertrophic cardiomyopathy remains to be determined. The hon. Gentleman mentioned genetic screening, which has huge potential in many areas and its development may take us in many directions. I understand, however, that in an editorial in the July edition of the journal Heart, which will be published next month, the leading expert in the
    278
    field, Dr. Michael Vincent of the university of Utah, offers a conclusion on the present evidence base with regard to genetic testing for these conditions. The article states:
    "Knowing the diagnosis, genotype or mutation type does not clearly influence treatment options or outcomes. Thus, there seems to be no compelling reason to perform genotyping for these clinical groups."
    In other words, on the basis of what we know at this stage, Dr. Vincent concludes that information from gene testing would not be of practical use, given the limitations of our knowledge about how to improve outcomes.
    I take very seriously what the hon. Gentleman said about not simply assuming that it is better for people not to know about their condition. It is wrong to make such judgments on behalf of other people. We must accept that giving people information about a condition that we may not be able to improve or for which we cannot offer alternative treatments or life styles can have psychological consequences. However. I agree that we cannot make presumptions about what people should know about their own health. My experience is that people increasingly want more information about their health and about the options open to them. They at least want the chance to decide for themselves what happens.
    We must also bear in mind the evidence that exists about whether there is any positive benefit that should be taken into account. The 1999 study showed that there was insufficient evidence that the sort of diagnosis that would flow from a screening programme would be of benefit, but that is not to say that we should accept the findings of that study and do nothing to alter the status quo.
    The hon. Gentleman asked whether implantable cardioverter defibrillators would take us further and change the position, and I shall ask the national screening committee to advise me on that. The National Institute for Clinical Excellence issued guidance in September 2000 on the use of such defibrillators. Implementation of that guidance in the NHS is expected to cause implantation rates to rise from the present 17 per 1 million people to around 50 per 1 million. Additional resources have been made available through health authority allocations to support the implementation of all the NICE recommendations.
    Whether that will change the position in terms of screening depends on whether there is evidence that outcomes showed an improvement for people diagnosed with the condition at an early stage. We simply do not have evidence about how many casualties of sudden death syndrome would have benefited from ICDs, nor about how many people who might be diagnosed as a result of a screening process would also benefit from the implants. We need to know the answers to those critical questions to decide whether a screening programme was a good idea.
    We also need more information about appropriate ways to treat the condition in general. The Cardiomyopathy Association, working with Professor William McKenna of St. George's hospital medical school, has been developing guidelines on the diagnosis and management of hypertrophic cardiomyopathy. We await those guidelines with interest, and will consider how best to disseminate them when they are published.
    I shall ask the national screening committee to consider whether there has been sufficient development—in terms of evidence and new treatment possibilities—for it to update the 1999 review. I will write to the hon. Gentleman

    279
    on that subject, as I consider it important for us to keep an open mind and to review matters as research uncovers further evidence.
    Finally, I agree with the hon. Gentleman that research is the way forward. He asked about section 64 funding for CRY. Departmental officials will meet CRY later this summer, and I hope that they will be able to discuss the priorities that should be taken into consideration when
    280
    section 64 funding is awarded. The hon. Gentleman will know that that the contest for that funding is sharp every year.
    I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising these important matters, which are extremely serious for the families involved and especially for the constituent to whom he has referred this evening. I shall write to him with more information.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Adjourned accordingly at half-past Seven o'clock.

PRIME MINISTER

  European Council (Gothenburg)
  Ian Stewart
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the meeting of the European Council he attended in Gothenburg. [405]

  The Prime Minister
  A meeting of the European Council was held in Gothenburg on 15 and 16 June. I attended, accompanied by my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary.

  The European Council was preceded by an EU/US Summit and by a dinner of European Heads of Government with President Bush. The European Union and the United States were able to make common cause in our approach to the middle east, the Balkans, our relationship with Russia, and European security and defence policy. We also made a joint commitment to work to settle bilateral trade disputes and to launch a new round of world trade negotiations in November.

  On the environment, the United States shared the European Union's concern over the problem of climate change, and the need for a global response to limit greenhouse gas emissions. Views on the Kyoto Protocol differed. The European Union remains committed to the Kyoto Protocol and to its ratification. The United States does not accept the Kyoto target, but President Bush did stress America's acceptance of a science-based approach and a willingness to work with us in a new High-Level Group to try to reach agreement. He also said that the US Administration would participate actively in the Kyoto follow-up meeting in Bonn in July.

  The European Council reaffirmed its commitment to enlargement which is vital to the stability and prosperity of the candidate countries, and will bring economic benefits to all European countries, including our own. We have agreed to work to complete the negotiations for the first wave of candidate countries by the end of 2002 so that they can participate as members of the European Union in the European Parliament elections in 2004. At the end of the Gothenburg meeting, the EU Heads of Government met the leaders of the countries who have applied to join the Union.

  The Council discussed the Irish referendum result and offered the Irish Government its support in finding a way forward that will allow enlargement to go ahead as planned.

  For the first time, the European Union adopted a strategy for sustainable development focused on the problems of climate change; public health and food safety; poverty; and transport congestion. Sustainable development will be an important element of the Union's work in economic, social and environmental areas. The conclusion usefully emphasised that the Common
  2W
  Agricultural Policy and its future development must contribute to achieving sustainable development. This fits in well with the United Kingdom's agenda of CAP reform.

  The Swedish presidency has made good progress in furthering the European security and defence policy (ESDP). It has taken forward the implementation of the Nice decisions on ESDP and the work to improve military capabilities. The presidency has also achieved much in developing the civilian aspects of crisis management, including progress towards meeting the agreed target on police and establishing further targets on other civilian aspects. One of the lessons of Kosovo was the importance of this area of work and we welcome the presidency's achievements. The presidency rightly focused on conflict prevention, and the European Council endorsed the presidency's programme of priorities for co-operation. The programme also proposed arrangements for enhanced EU/UN consultation. All partners recognised that we must ensure that the EU's evolving military and civilian capacities provide added value for the UN.

  Given the grave concern we all felt at the deteriorating situation in Macedonia, the European Council decided that a resident EU representative in Skopje should be appointed, acting under the authority of High Representative Solana, in order to provide day-to-day EU input to the political negotiations between the Macedonian parties, and to liaise with representatives of NATO, the United States and the EU's other main partners on the ground.

  The European Council considered developments in the middle east, in Algeria, in East Timor, where it expressed support for the forthcoming elections for the constituent Assembly, and in Korea, where it welcomed the result of the recent EU high-level mission. The European Council also committed itself to strengthening international efforts to prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and in particular of ballistic missiles.

  This was a workman-like Council, well chaired by Prime Minister Persson, usefully carrying out the democratic business of the European Union in the interests of its member states. The democratic process has often been accompanied by peaceful protest. What is not acceptable is what happened in Gothenburg, where malicious violence by a minority of protesters threatened the lives and livelihoods of innocent people. It is essential for all of us that such violence should be resisted and should not be allowed to disrupt the entirely necessary work of building the security and prosperity of people in Europe and the wider world.

  North Atlantic Council (Brussels)
  Ian Stewart
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the meeting of the North Atlantic Council he attended in Brussels. [407]

  The Prime Minister
  I attended a special meeting of the North Atlantic Council at NATO Headquarters on 13 June, which was convened to coincide with President Bush's first official visit to Europe.

  The meeting highlighted the enduring importance of the transatlantic link and the continuing role NATO plays in guaranteeing our defence and promoting peace and security beyond its borders.
  3W
  NATO has adapted well to face the new challenges of the post-cold war world. Over the last decade, NATO has done much to bring stability to the Balkans, welcomed three new members and built a new strategic relationship with Russia. It has also established new security links to other states in the Euro-Atlantic area.

  The special meeting of the North Atlantic Council was a valuable opportunity for us to review the challenges ahead and look forward to the NATO Summit in Prague in November 2002.

  Our discussions focused on five issues:
  we recognised the emerging threat posed to all members of the Alliance by the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. This poses a major security challenge to NATO. In dealing with the threat, the British Government believe we need a strategy which includes offensive and defensive systems, rigorous implementation of national and multinational proliferation controls, and continued reductions in nuclear arms. Together, Alliance leaders welcomed the extensive programme of consultations undertaken by the US Government on how best to counter the threat, and looked forward to the further intensive consultations that lie ahead;
  NATO's success has attracted new applicants for membership. NATO is committed to review the question of enlargement at the Prague Summit. Lord Robertson has said that he expects the Alliance to launch a new round of enlargement then. I made clear my view that once the political and military criteria agreed by NATO at the Madrid and Washington summits are met, applicants should be invited to join;
  we discussed the progress which has been made in developing Europe's capacity for crisis management operations where NATO as a whole chooses not to be engaged. President Bush made clear his view that the development of this capacity will strengthen European security. We agreed on the need to assure the EU's access to NATO's planning capabilities, which is key to ensuring that the European Union's security and defence policy is firmly linked to NATO;
  the Alliance has made great progress in bringing stability to south-east Europe, but we face continuing challenges from extremists in Macedonia. NATO leaders recognised the urgent need for action by the international community to help restore stability there;
  Lord Robertson stressed the continuing need for NATO's member states to invest in the modern defence capabilities which the Alliance must have available if it is to remain effective. I agreed strongly with him.

  One of the reasons for NATO's continued success is that it provides a forum in which Europeans and North Americans can debate the security questions which confront us all. The success of this special meeting of the North Atlantic Council showed that this is as much the case today as ever. I look forward to further progress on all these issues by the time NATO leaders meet again in Prague next year.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Employment Action Plan
  Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will place copies of the United Kingdom's employment action plan in the Library. [340]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  I have today placed in the Library copies of the UK employment action plan, which sets out the Government's policies for implementing the 2001 employment guidelines agreed at the European Council held in Nice in December 2000. The plan 4W
  contains the latest information on policies for employment and employability, encouraging entrepreneurship and labour market adaptability, lifelong learning and equal opportunities.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Special Educational Needs
  Mr. Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what her plans are for laying before Parliament the revised Special Educational Needs Code of Practice. [1]

  Estelle Morris
  On 20 June, I laid before both Houses of Parliament a draft revised Special Educational Needs Code of Practice for England, as required under section 314(3) of the Education Act 1996. A Special Educational Needs Code of Practice for Wales will be placed before the National Assembly for Wales for approval separately.

  I have made and laid before Parliament yesterday the Education (Special Educational Needs) (England) Regulations 2001 and the Special Educational Needs (Provision of Information by Local Education Authorities) (England) Regulations 2001. They have been made under powers provided for by parts IV and I respectively of the Education Act 1996. The Education (Special Educational Needs) (England) Regulations update and replace the Education (Special Educational Needs) Regulations 1994 for England only while the Special Educational Needs (Provision of Information by Local Education Authorities) (England) Regulation 2001 required local education authorities to publish specific information about their policies for children with special educational needs. Arrangements in Wales will be considered by the National Assembly for Wales.

  I have also placed in the Libraries illustrative mock-ups of the proposed final design of the revised Code of Practice. All of the documents being presented to Parliament today are being made available to the All Party Disablement Group and the All Party Children Group.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Low Pay Commission
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the recommendations of the report from the Low Pay Commission. [406]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Low Pay Commission (LPC) submitted volume II of its third report to the Government on 11 June. The Government are today publishing the report and the detailed Government response to its recommendations.
  5W
  The Government are required by law to lay a report before each House of Parliament explaining their response to the LPC's recommendation. That report has now been laid. It says that:
  The Government accept the recommendation to give the LPC a permanent role in monitoring the minimum wage.
  The Government accept the recommendation to increase the development rate from £3.20 an hour to £3.50 an hour on 1 October 2001.
  The Government accept the recommendation to make a further increase to £3.60 an hour on October 2002, subject to the economic situation remaining favourable.
  The Government do not accept the recommendation to apply the adult rate of the minimum wage to workers aged 21. The adult rate will continue to apply from a worker's 22nd birthday.
  The Government note the recommendation for biennial reviews commencing with a report in February 2003. The LPC will be given full terms of reference in due course. The Government agree that when reviews are undertaken they should be over a two year period, in advance of the relevant budget.
  The Government accept all the remaining LPC recommendations.
  6W
  The detail of the recommendations, and the explanation of why the recommendations for 21-year-olds has not been accepted, can be found in the full Government response placed in the Libraries of each House. The Regulations affecting the changes which the Government have accepted are subject to the affirmative procedure and will be debated in both Houses shortly. The Government have prepared a regulatory impact assessment which is also published today, and copies have been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  The Government agree with the LPC that a strategic, longer-term programme of research needs to be established. To this end the LPC is being provided with a new remit to enable it to continue to monitor and evaluate the impact of the NMW, and especially to commission longer-term research. This will help inform the Commission's analysis and recommendations to be included in its next report.

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Bristol.

Lord Rooker
The Right Honourable Jeffrey William Rooker, having been created Baron Rooker, of Perry Bar in the County of West Midlands, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Donoughue and the Baroness Gould of Potternewton, and made the solemn Affirmation.

Baroness Morgan of Huyton
Sally Morgan, having been created Baroness Morgan of Huyton, of Huyton in the County of Merseyside, for life—Was, in her robes, introduced between the Lord Williams of Mostyn and the Baroness Gould of Potternewton, and made the solemn Affirmation.
Several Lords—Took the Oath or Affirmed.

Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill [H.L.]
3.24 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg): My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to make provision about commonhold land and to amend the law about leasehold property. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Land Registration Bill [H.L.]
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to make provision about land registration; and for connected purposes. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

International Development Bill [H.L.]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Amos): My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to make provision relating to the provision of assistance for countries outside the United Kingdom; to make provision with
26
respect to certain international financial institutions and the Commonwealth Scholarship Commission; and for connected purposes. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time. —(Baroness Amos.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

British Overseas Territories Bill [H.L.]
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to make provision about the name "British overseas territories" and British citizenship so far as relating to the British overseas territories. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Baroness Amos.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Barclays Group Reorganisation Bill [H.L.]

  National Australia Group Europe Bill [H.L.]
  3.26 p.m.
  The Chairman of Committees (Lord Tordoff): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
  Moved, That the promoters of the Bills which originated in this House in the last Parliament but had not received the Royal Assent shall, notwithstanding anything in the Standing Orders or practice of this House, have leave to introduce the said Bills in the present Session and the petitions for the Bills shall be deemed to have been deposited and all Standing Orders applicable thereto shall be deemed to have been complied with;
  That every such Bill shall be deposited in the office of the Clerk of the Parliaments not later than 3 o'clock on Tuesday 26th June with a declaration annexed thereto signed by the agent concerned, stating that the Bill is the same in every respect as the Bill at the last stage of the proceedings thereon in this House in the last Parliament;
  That the proceedings on such Bills shall in the present Session of Parliament be pro forma only, in regard to every stage through which the same shall have passed in the last Parliament, and that no new fees be charged to such stages.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  Committee of Selection
  The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. Perhaps I may point out to noble Lords

  27
  that there is a change in the Committee of Selection. It is no longer entirely composed of the usual channels, but now includes representatives of the Back Benches from the two largest parties in the House.
  Moved, That in accordance with Standing Order 63 a Committee of Selection be appointed to select and propose to the House the names of the Lords to form each Select Committee of the House (except the Committee of Selection itself and any committee otherwise provided for by statute or by order of the House) or any other body not being a Select Committee referred to it by the Chairman of Committees, and the panel of Deputy Chairmen of Committees; and that the following Lords together with the Chairman of Committees be named of the committee

  L. Carter,

  L. Craig of Radley,

  L. Dubs,

  L. Henley,

  L. Rodgers of Quarry Bank,

  L. Roper,

  V. Slim,

  L. Strathclyde,

  L. Trefgarne,

  L. Williams of Mostyn (Lord Privy Seal).— (The Chairman of Committees.)

  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  Foot and Mouth Disease
  3.27 p.m.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Whitty): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. The Statement is as follows:
  "With permission, I would like to make a Statement on the foot and mouth outbreak.
  "I want to take this, the earliest available opportunity, to update the House on developments since my right honourable friend, the then Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, made his Statement on Thursday, 3rd May and to set out the measures the Government continue to take.
  "As of midday today, there had been in total 1,771 confirmed cases of foot and mouth disease in the United Kingdom, including four in Northern Ireland. Yesterday, there was only one case. Since my right honourable friend addressed the House some seven weeks ago, there have been cases—an average of between four and five per day. This compares with the highest point of over 40 cases per day at the end of March.
  "The number of animals slaughtered for disease control purposes has now reached nearly 3.4 million—an increase of 1 million since 3rd May.
  28
  The percentages of each species remain roughly the same—around 80 per cent are sheep, 16 per cent are cattle and 4 per cent are pigs.
  "A further 1.1 million animals have been slaughtered under the livestock welfare disposal scheme. The total number of animals slaughtered under both headings is about 4.5 million so far—out of a total UK livestock population of around 55 million. To put that figure in context, although by anyone's standards a massive number of animals have had to be slaughtered, it is of course substantially a smaller number than we slaughter for consumption in an average week (some half a million cattle, sheep and pigs a week).
  "My right honourable friend warned the House on 3rd May that the epidemiological advice was that cases would continue to occur for some time yet. That remains the case. He also warned that we expected that the outbreak would have a long tail, that there would be further outbreaks in some parts of the country and that the number of cases per day would fluctuate. That remains the position today.
  "The objective also remains to eradicate the disease as quickly as we can. Let me make it perfectly clear that although we cannot put a definitive timescale on the achievement of that goal, no one is suggesting that it will be in the next few days or weeks. So it is hugely important that no one relaxes their guard. Certainly for us in government, all the resources we need to bear down on the disease—civil and military—will be deployed where they are needed for as long as they are needed.
  "Over 900 vets are still actively working on the outbreak, including around 80 from abroad. As the number of daily cases declined, it has been possible to reduce the number of military personnel now working on the ground to around 250, mainly in the north of England.
  "That reduction can, of course, speedily be reversed if the need should arise. Indeed, our immediate response to the outbreak in the Settle area of North Yorkshire showed that we are able to react rapidly when the situation requires it. And of course hundreds of administrative staff remain in place in control centres around the country.
  "My right honourable friend was able to say on 3rd May that there were no backlogs of animals awaiting disposal anywhere in Great Britain. I am pleased to say that we have maintained this position ever since and it remains the case today. A new system, co-ordinated in the Page Street, London, headquarters, ensures that carcasses are picked up from farms promptly after slaughter and transported to their final destination without further delay.
  "Of course, it is much easier to achieve rapid turnaround when there are just four or five cases per day than when there are 30 or 40. Nevertheless, the task of ensuring that many thousands of carcasses are collected and disposed of each day is itself a

  29
  major logistical exercise. Seven or eight cases can lead to 30 or 40 farms, including the contiguous premises, and therefore up to 20,000 carcasses.
  "Protection of the environment and human health are our priority for all disposal options. Rendering is the best way of disposing of carcasses and will always be our first choice. But rendering capacity is finite and can quickly become overstretched, at least in the short term, if on any given day the number of cases rises. The Department of Health has advised that the greatest public health hazard would be to leave carcasses out in the open, especially in warm weather, so other means of disposal may still need to be called upon from time to time.
  "So, if other options are exhausted, we shall on occasion still have to turn to licensed landfills and mass burial sites. I understand the strength of local feelings about burial sites and I can assure the House that a decision to use such a site, even for just one day or a few lorryloads, is not taken lightly. But, as has been said many times, there are no easy options for disposal, and if the circumstances arise we must be prepared to utilise the national assets we have, including burial sites.
  "However, these are the steps taken to deal effectively with the outbreak of the disease. Even more important is to prevent further spread of the disease. I cannot emphasise too highly the continuing importance of high standards of biosecurity on and around farms—that is, practical precautionary measures to prevent further spread of the disease. We are taking every opportunity to drive home this message, including interviews in the national and local media and advertisements in the local and farming press. We are also producing a video demonstrating a practical approach to biosecurity and this will shortly be made available to all livestock farmers and others in the industry, accompanied by a leaflet and letter from Jim Scudamore, the Chief Veterinary Officer. It really is essential to drive this message home and I appeal to all right honourable and honourable Members to play their part.
  "As the House is aware, the outbreak continues in a number of areas of the country. But fortunately it is also the case that other regions have had no cases at all or have had no further cases for a long time and are looking forward to a return to normality. We are doing everything we can to facilitate this, subject naturally to the overriding priority not to put at risk the eradication of the disease.
  "Thirty-seven infected areas have now been lifted. These are areas where not only have there been no new cases for over 30 days but also thorough veterinary and serological testing has taken place. Some 43,000 farms have now benefited from the lifting of restrictions, that is around one-third of the number of farms which were ever restricted.
  "As I have said, wherever in the country there is a disease problem we will put all our efforts into eradicating it. At the same time I am also very
  30
  conscious of the call from the farming industry and wider rural community for some of the tighter movement restrictions to be relaxed. As ever, there is a balance to be achieved between continuing to bear down on the disease—movement restrictions are an essential part of our armoury for controlling the disease—and allowing reasonably normal business to take place where the risk of spreading the disease is very low but the restrictions applied must be proportionate to that risk.
  "I can announce today two significant changes to the rules on the movement of livestock. The industry has been pressing for some time for a relaxation of the licence restrictions to enable more normal trade to take place. Clearly our first priority is to ensure that nothing is done which puts al risk the eradication of the disease. The veterinary advice is that certain changes can be made provided that strict criteria are applied and the animals are otherwise eligible to be moved under the existing FMD rules.
  "First, as from tomorrow, Friday, 22nd June, livestock (cattle, sheep and pigs) from within infected areas will be permitted to move, under licence, for slaughter in abattoirs outside the infected area, both for human consumption and under the livestock welfare disposal scheme. And, secondly, also from tomorrow, cattle and pigs from outside infected areas will be permitted to move, under licence, into provisionally free areas on welfare grounds. At the same time, welfare movements of cattle and pigs from one provisionally free area to another will also be permitted. The veterinary advice is that a similar easing of welfare movements for sheep would present too high a risk in the current situation.
  "Relaxation of movement restrictions (where it is reasonable to do so) is important for our farming industry, but foot and mouth disease has also had a devastating impact on the wider rural economy. As part of our strategy for wider rural recovery, we want to see footpaths and other rights of way reopened wherever it is safe to do so. Considerable progress has been made in recent weeks, with over half of all paths now open. This reflects real effort and good will of many local authorities, farmers and walkers. However, some local authorities have kept paths shut when it is very difficult to see that it is justified in the face of what are assessed as very slight risks. What is also unhelpful is that even where most paths are open, people are often still confused about which paths are open and which shut.
  "I have asked my right honourable friend the Minister for Rural Affairs to examine as a matter of urgency whether we can revoke the remaining blanket closures of paths in the near future. We would keep in place local authority powers to close paths selectively where necessary, mainly within three kilometres of infected premises, and we will listen to representations from local authorities and others who may wish to retain blanket closures in particular areas affected by disease. We fully recognise that this may be an appropriate response

  31
  in areas where there is or has been a high concentration of disease, such that implementing path-by-path closures would be difficult.
  "Revoking remaining blanket closures will both increase the number of paths open and, equally important, make much clearer which paths are open and which are closed. It will mean that by the summer holidays the vast majority of the countryside will be well and truly open and seen to be open for visitors and for business.
  "We are also continuing to take action to help rural businesses, particularly in the worst affected areas, cope with the impact of foot and mouth. Over the last three months the Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise have deferred some £71 million of tax without interest charge for severely affected businesses. Local authorities have granted or are considering 3,500 applications for hardship rate relief in addition to deferment of rates bills and applications for revaluation related to foot and mouth impacts.
  "In addition we have provided additional funding of £39 million for the foot and mouth disease business Recovery Fund run by regional development agencies to add to the resources they had already been allocated and have themselves reprioritised for such use. In addition to business support and funding for local and regional promotion, over 200 businesses have now had offers of grant from this fund and we expect all RDAs to have the fund fully operational with their Business Link partners by the end of this month.
  "This disease has been a terrible blow to farmers and the wider rural community. For some, recovery will still seem a distant dream. Nevertheless, work to help farmers emerge from the crisis has begun and is of course linked to the Government's aims to create sustainable and diverse farming and food industries and to promote thriving rural economies and communities.
  "In the short term we have already paid out £790 million in compensation for slaughtered animals in addition to the £156 million announced for agrimonetary compensation and an estimated total of some £230 million under the livestock welfare disposal scheme. Looking to the longer term, members of the Rural Task Force and other stakeholders are already engaged in discussions with my department and my ministerial colleagues on how best to deliver a sustainable and thriving countryside.
  "It is clear that we must learn the lessons from this outbreak. Although everyone was trying to do their best, it is in the nature of things that some errors are likely to have been made. What is important is not just to identify what we could and should do better next time, but also to highlight the many things which went well and which we should do again if the same or a similar situation should arise.
  32
  "We also need to look at issues such as the possible future shape of the disease control regime and what changes might be necessary at EU as well as at national level. Again, a review is planned for the autumn and we are keen to play an active part in this. I discussed all these points with EU colleagues at the Agriculture Council this week and other member states continue to be appreciative of our efforts.
  "My department and I are determined to bring this outbreak to an end. I have been tremendously impressed by the commitment of all those working on foot and mouth I have met in my short time in office: vets, soldiers, administrative and technical staff, who are still in many areas of the country working long hours, seven days a week. I am most grateful to those who have contributed to the team effort and pay tribute to them all. I myself will be visiting one of the worst affected areas in the North of England soon.
  "Let us, too, on all sides of the House, continue to work together as we move nearer to our ultimate goal of the complete eradication of the disease from the United Kingdom and a return to normality in farming and rural communities".
  My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
  The House might consider it remiss if I sat down without first paying tribute to my noble friend Lady Hayman in terms of the energy that she has demonstrated in combating this dreadful disease and the assiduousness with which she has reported to your Lordships' House.
  3.41 p.m.
  Baroness Byford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. I should like to join in the thoughts and wishes in regard to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, and to add our thanks for her conscientious work not only in relation to the outbreak of this disease but over the past two or three years. I shall say more about that on Tuesday, so perhaps the House will forgive my brevity today.
  I congratulate the Minister on his new role. The noble Lord is well known for his work on environmental issues and we welcome the fact that he has particular responsibility for food and farming. He takes over at a time when there is a continuing depth of depression in farming and in other rural businesses.
  We welcome parts of the Statement. I refer in particular to the two significant changes in the rules for the movement of livestock. They will bring relief in terms of the livestock welfare disposal schemes as well as bringing more animals into the food chain for human consumption.
  We welcome the proposed easing of the blanket closure of footpaths. However, I remind the noble Lord that due care is necessary. Local consultation is essential, particularly in areas where livestock might be affected by the opening of footpaths.
  The Statement acknowledges that it would be difficult for the general public to know which paths are open and which are closed. With the summer holidays

  33
  coming up, perhaps I may again underline that difficulty. It has been said in the past that government guidelines have lacked clarity. It is an area that needs careful examination.
  The devastation has not only directly affected farming; it has affected the tourist industry and other rural businesses. Takings in tourism were a quarter down in April, with repercussions felt in market towns and in London. Last weekend I had the opportunity of paying a brief visit to Cornwall, where it was encouraging to see some of the footpaths open.
  In that context, what progress has been made on the cashflow problems reported during our previous discussions? There have been reports of late payments and of a great deal of bureaucracy making the delays even worse. Will the Minister tell the house what businesses are currently receiving help from local authorities and how many are still waiting for help? I understand that local authorities have granted, or are considering granting, some 3,500 payments. How many have been made to date?
  The Statement refers to an inquiry. We on these Benches have pushed for a public inquiry. The Statement refers to lessons that need to be learnt and to a review of disease control. Why are the Government not willing to hold a public inquiry? It has been suggested that a Select Committee inquiry would be relevant. But is this right? All the Ministers responsible have either been moved or have left office. My understanding of Select Committee procedure is that those Ministers would not be called to give evidence; only the present incumbents would be asked to do so. Why are there difficulties about holding a public inquiry? Will the Minister give us some answers?
  I raise the issue of the 20-day livestock movement ban. Has there been a government rethink on the proposal? It is impractical and it would further damage the future livelihood of livestock farmers.
  Have the Government reconsidered the whole question of consequential loss which we have raised on many occasions? I refer directly to the matter of cattle over 30 months old and to sheep with second teeth. These issues have not gone away.
  I also raise the question of meat imports at the port of entry. We understood from our debate on a previous Statement that inspection regimes were being stepped up. How many people have been employed in addition to those who were in post, say, six months ago? Does the Minister agree that the issue of honest labelling should be urgently reconsidered?
  The Statement refers to the fact that some 1.1 million animals have been slaughtered under the livestock welfare disposal scheme. The Minister said that since 3rd May an additional 1 million animals have been slaughtered for control purposes. I was dismayed by that section of the Statement, which went on to say that, so far. 4.5 million animals out of a total livestock population of 55 million have been slaughtered. What concerns me—I believe that other noble Lords will also be concerned—is that, to put that figure in context, although by any standard a massive
  34
  number of animals have been slaughtered, it is a substantially smaller number than are slaughtered for consumption in an average week. Such a figure is not relevant and it is unwise to have included it. I remind the noble Lord that among those numbers are many important breeding stock which have been lost for ever.
  I am sure that the Minister will agree that certain geographical areas have been greatly damaged and that it will take a long time to build them up again. To say that I found that part of the Statement insensitive is an understatement, even for me.
  We must not drop our guard. As I said, I am concerned about footpaths. In the talks that took place this week within the EU was the question of vaccination raised? It is an issue that has been raised previously in this House. Whatever we decide to do in this country has to be agreed by colleagues in Europe.
  Will the Rural Task Force, led formerly by the right honourable Michael Meacher and which I understand is now to be led by Alun Michael, report to Parliament in due course?
  The 1,771 confirmed cases of foot and mouth are 1,771 too many. Many more people have been directly affected by the outbreak. Despair, gloom, lack of direction and lack of hope are still common among the farming and rural communities. As I said, this affects tourism and other rural businesses. The Government's record has not been good. They have been slow to react. Dithering and confusing messages, often conflicting, have added to the misery. New out breaks are still occurring daily and in some cases we do not know the reason for them.
  I welcome the Minister to his new role. The new team are crucially needed and have much to do. Before closing, perhaps I may add my thanks and congratulations to all those, both professionals and volunteers, who have worked and continue to work so hard to help farmers and others in rural areas at this depressing time.
  3.50 p.m.
  Lord Greaves: My Lords, perhaps I may add the thanks of these Benches to those already expressed to the Minister for repeating the Statement in the House. I should also like to congratulate the noble Lord on taking on this new bed of nails. However, his shoulders are broad and I am sure that he will survive. I, too, express thanks for the work that was carried out by the former Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman.
  Before I begin, I should apologise for the absence of my noble friend Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer. She is unable to be here today and, therefore, I am responding to the Statement in her stead. I do so in the knowledge that the foot and mouth outbreak in the central Pennines—in the Craven, Settle, Skipton and Ribble Valley area—is now about three or four miles away from the village in which I live, and still seems to be advancing. We hope that that is not so, but that seemed to be the case two days ago. In our area, we have perhaps a fortnight before we can breathe a little

  35
  more gently in the belief that it has not jumped into our valley across the Pennine watershed. That is the situation in which we find ourselves.
  When speaking to the farmers who have been affected by this dreadful outbreak, and everyone else in the communities situated not very far from us, one realises that there is an astonishing sense of depression, despair and anger, as well as a feeling that the rest of the country and the national media have forgotten about the outbreak. If one reads national newspapers, foot and mouth is no longer a major issue. However, we are in the middle of it. I have to say that there are many tales about the inefficiency and bungling on the part of the people who have been dealing with the outbreak, the like of which have previously occurred in other areas. I hope to acquaint your Lordships with such details on a later date.
  I turn to the Statement. We, too, welcome the relaxations that have been introduced for the movement of livestock to which the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, referred. In that respect, I should like to ask the Minister a specific question regarding livestock that can be moved within England. Under the new arrangements, I understand that such livestock can be moved from infected areas to abattoirs outside those infected areas. Can the Minister say whether this will now apply to livestock in the north of England which would be destined for abattoirs in Scotland? I am thinking especially of the abattoir at Ayr. Up until now, this has been allowed in Scotland but has not applied to similar stock just over the Border.
  There is no doubt that much of the countryside is in deep crisis. Those noble Lords who spoke on the subject during the many debates that took place before the Recess did not overestimate the problems that exist. What is needed now is a huge government effort, with the assistance of everyone else involved, which would give these rural areas new confidence for the future. That applies particularly to the people whose livelihoods depend on the activities in such communities. It is true of the farmers and the agricultural industry, as well as of the tourist and outdoor industries about which I have spoken previously.
  As my noble friend has pointed out on several occasions, one of the real problems about this outbreak is that it affects too many places, and it has set the farmers against the tourist industry. More and more people are beginning to realise that the two interests stand or fall together; in other words, if farming goes then so, too, will the tourist industry. There are so many parts of the rural economy where farming alone can no longer sustain the village economies. Tourism is also needed. In many cases, the same families are involved in both sides of the equation. I suggest that the two industries should stand firm together in order to recreate prosperity in these rural areas.
  The first fundamental question that I have for the Government is as follows. Given the complete lack of confidence that livestock farmers have in the future, what message can the Government give to them? What
  36
  can the Government do to persuade people who have had their sheep and their cattle slaughtered out that there is a future for them? Like other noble Lords, I can tell the House that many of those farmers do not believe that they have a future. They do not believe that this Government care about them. I have with me a letter that I received only this morning from Mrs. Andrea Watson, who farms at West Marton in the Settle area, in which she says:
  "I really still need to know the answer to the question that I wanted you to ask. Which was: We really need to know whether there is any point in us using all our compensation to start up farming again, and if not we need to know what we should do?"
  This is a family farm that had sheep, goats and 2,000 cattle slaughtered out. The family are absolutely devastated. They are willing to start up again, but they want to hear the message from the Government that there is a future for such farms.
  The second major issue is the question of the inquiry. A Minister seemed to suggest through the media previously that there would be a full public inquiry. However, that was not the impression to be gained from what Margaret Beckett said in another place earlier today. As far as these Benches are concerned, nothing less than a full public inquiry will do. If it takes longer to bring the full facts and the truth to light and to give everyone the opportunity to put his or her twopenn'orth in, that is more important than having a quick inquiry that people will inevitably perceive as something that just papers over the cracks. There is a real fear that the Government are trying to wriggle out of this. We should like to have an absolute assurance in that respect. Similarly, we do not understand why it is not possible to announce now that a public inquiry will be conducted. Much of the preliminary work could be undertaken, and the initial investigations necessary for such an inquiry could be started.
  There are many other questions to be asked, but I should like to stress that there is much concern because the future of the countryside was not specifically mentioned in the Queen's Speech. People believe that the Government do not care and that they are abandoning the countryside. As far as concerns MAFF, it is not a change of name that is required: it is a change of culture. There is a real feeling that MAFF is dead—"Long live MAFF!" under a different name.
  3.57 p.m.
  Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, for her welcome to the changes as regards the movement restrictions and even more so for her support for the staff, and others, involved throughout the country in combating this disease. Indeed, they work extraordinarily long hours in so doing. The noble Baroness also welcomed—at least broadly—the measures regarding footpaths. Clearly the restoration of the countryside to something like normality in those areas where it is safe to do so is most important. I agree completely with the noble Baroness that the question of clarity is absolutely paramount in the matter. I hope that the moves that

  37
  my right honourable friend Alun Michael is likely to announce later today, and subsequently, will indicate that the position of tourists, walkers and local people will be clearer as a result of such changes. I can assure her that such developments will be conducted in consultation with local authorities and local communities.
  The noble Baroness asked about cash flows. I can tell her that the cash flow situation in relation to farming has improved significantly since 3rd May. I believe that her main concern was about the position of non-farm businesses as regards local authorities. It is true that some consideration has been given by local authorities to hardship applications. Therefore, some delay has occurred in the process of dealing with such applications. The deferment of tax and rates was made quickly available from late March, so there has been some significant release.
  The RDAs are now acting quickly by offering advice through the Business Links. The cash direct to business has also been a little delayed because of the need to assess significant offers as regards the applications from businesses. However, over 300 businesses have now been offered money from the RDA business recovery scheme. It is important that the money that we have supplied in this respect should be targeted and that applications should be properly assessed. We are making efforts through all means—local authorities, RDAs and the tax and rating authorities—to ensure that the benefit reaches those businesses as rapidly as possible. In those areas where we need to review the situation, we are conducting such reviews.
  The noble Baroness also asked about the 20-day standstill in relation to movement of livestock and the consultation that was running in parallel with this outbreak. The consultation period has now ended and we are well aware of the concern that has been expressed about the proposition by a large proportion of those involved in the livestock industry. We have yet to reach a decision on the matter. We shall no doubt return to it at a later date.
  The noble Baroness also referred to consequential losses. The Government have made clear that we are prepared to award compensation to farmers as regards the immediate effects of the disease. However, we have not proposed any change in other compensation arrangements. The utilisation of rendering capacity up to the maximum has meant that we have not been able to restore the over 30 months scheme in relation to older cattle. We are aware that that is creating a problem but at the moment the capacity does not exist to deal with that. We are keeping that situation under review.
  The noble Baroness also referred to import measures. I cannot comment on the situation with regard to inspection personnel. We have intensified our efforts, both through inspectors and Customs and Excise. We have also arranged with ports of embarkation, the airlines and the shipping companies to provide stronger warnings and more information to
  38
  people bringing in personal imports. We have vigorously taken up the issue of labelling with the relevant EU commissioner.
  The noble Baroness mentioned vaccination. When we review what happened during the outbreak we shall consider the future use of vaccination. For the moment there are no plans to embark on a vaccination strategy, but that option remains should further unforeseen developments arise. She asked about the Rural Task Force. That is an operational body which would not normally report to Parliament. However, at a later date the outcome of some of the important issues that it addresses will be reported to Parliament via the Secretary of State and myself.
  The noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, referred to the general situation in the rural community. There is enormous distress in that community, for which we must all feel great sympathy. It is incumbent upon the Government to give some sense of hope to farmers and to the rural communities. However, the disease has not yet been eradicated and our priority must be to continue to suppress it where it is still occurring, particularly with regard to the new outbreaks which the noble Baroness mentioned.
  Both the Opposition spokespeople asked about an inquiry. We need to learn lessons in terms of our understanding of the spread of the disease, the science of the disease and the effectiveness or otherwise of the control mechanisms that have been applied. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State referred to the need to learn those lessons and to ascertain what we did right and what we did wrong in all quarters once the disease is eradicated. There will therefore need to be a thorough-going inquiry into the disease and the handling of it. The exact form of the inquiry will be a matter for the Prime Minister to consider and to announce at a later date. However, the Government intend that the public and all parties involved should learn lessons from the way the disease has been handled.
  The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, referred to the situation in his own area. The continuing outbreaks in Settle are deeply disturbing. In recent days there have been further cases. Strong biosecurity and transportation measures are necessary in that area. As he will know, stronger measures are in place than we have previously taken in relation to checking livestock movements in that area.
  The noble Lord also mentioned the situation across the Border. The arrangements in Scotland differ slightly from those in England. If I may, I shall write to him on that issue. He rightly said that confidence is important both for farmers and for the rural community as a whole, as is the realisation of the interdependence of farming, tourism and other businesses in rural areas. We need to make the eradication of the disease our first priority and to develop in parallel an exit strategy.
  However, we are also determined to consider the long-term future of farming and of rural areas. That is one of the reasons for the creation of my department which constitutes much more than a change of name

  39
  on the departmental door. We are putting agriculture at the centre of the food chain in a vertical sense, as it were, and of the rural economy in a horizontal sense, as it were, by placing it within a framework which addresses environmental issues. That process should guarantee a future for agriculture. However, its future may not be the same as its past. In my limited discussions with farmers' leaders and others involved in the food chain I have been impressed by their recognition of that fact. We wish to return to a situation of normality and to restore confidence to the farming community. However, we recognise that that process may involve a long haul and that a return to normality may not constitute a return to the situation that pertained four or five years ago. The farming industry suffered from an underlying problem which we must address in the medium term. My colleagues and I are determined to do so in conjunction with the farming industry.
  4.6 p.m.
  The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I welcome the noble Lord's new appointment. I also thank his predecessor, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, for the wonderful work that she did over the years. Despite the letter which I received from the noble Baroness about two weeks ago which stated that administrative staff at the regional offices were fully trained and were fully informed, I am aware of enormous difficulties at the Worcester regional office—presumably other people are aware of difficulties at other regional offices—where the staff who man the telephones lack information. We have not had an outbreak in Worcestershire since 12th April but we are still told that it is an infected area. No one will tell us why that is the case. However, someone else then tells us we are no longer an infected area. The staff do not seem to know the difference between 10 miles and 10 kilometres.
  Recently my husband wanted to buy a bull. He was told that he was subject to a Section D notice. However, we had never been subject to a Section D notice. After much rigmarole we finally bought the bull but we have been told that we must wait until all the sheep in our locality have been serologically tested. Why is it that the former Ministry of Agriculture and the new department refuse to respond to Dr Colin Fink's request for some dead foot and mouth virus to create an assay for serological testing? He has been asked to do that by a number of organisations. He was assured by Professor Paul Kitching before he left Pirbright that that would be possible but he has still not received a reasonable answer as to why he cannot have the foot and mouth virus. I stress that it is a matter of dead virus.
  There seems to be a feeling that the private sector may be competing with the public sector in this matter. I stress to the Minister the importance of the two sectors working together. They can help each other. There is expertise on both sides. There is no likelihood
  40
  of a rivalry arising that will cause problems. I ask the Minister to intervene in the matter and to ensure that it is addressed.
  Lord Whitty: My Lords, I agree that it is important that the public and private sectors work together in this matter. The tremendous effort that has been expended in the veterinary and scientific worlds to counter the disease is a good example of that co-operation. I shall consider the precise research proposal that the noble Countess mentioned. However, the general position is that all research involving FMD viruses, dead or alive, can be carried out only in certain establishments where the highest degree of disease containment is applied. We need to maintain that position. It is not a question of fear of competition but of making sure that during the epidemic no problem arises from any research which may be conducted. Nevertheless, I undertake to let the noble Countess know the position with regard to this proposition.
  I regret if misleading information was given. However, many of the staff drafted in come from departments other than the former MAFF. They have had to learn the job very rapidly, on the end of a telephone. I was yesterday at the control centre in Exeter and was deeply impressed with the way in which staff were dealing with inquiries. In general they have performed better as they have gone on. When one looks back, some mistakes will have been made. I am sorry that the noble Countess may have been a victim of that. However, in general the information given and the standardisation of that information has now been pretty effective.
  Lord Dubs: My Lords, I welcome very much the thrust of what the Minister said, in particular the support the Government will give to industries and businesses in rural areas. At the end of the Statement he said something very interesting: that farming and rural areas are not likely to get back to where they were previously; and he proposed to look into the future of agriculture and rural areas in a different way. Can my noble friend say a little more on that and about the process by which his department would embark on that thinking?
  Lord Whitty: My Lords, some important decisions with regard to the eradication of the disease and the immediate exit from the disease will face Ministers in the coming days, weeks and months. In addition—the creation of the department is part of it—we shall look at the long-term future of farming and the food chain in this country. A number of economic, social and environmental problems confront them.
  My noble friend, who reads party manifestos avidly, will know that within the Labour Party manifesto was a reference to such a policy commission. We hope to make an announcement on that in due course. That would help Ministers give strategic thought to the future of farming and food production and distribution within this country.
  Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the Minister one practical question. Shearing in some parts of the country is difficult because of the impossibility of moving sheep and because many of those who normally take part in shearing come from Australia and New Zealand and for obvious reasons have not visited the country. Is the noble Lord's department doing anything to ease the severe problem?
  While we welcome his admission that there has to be an inquiry, we do not understand, and the agricultural industry will not accept, that the start of that inquiry should be delayed until the outbreak is completely over. There is strong belief that we should set up the inquiry to consider the issue as a matter of urgency. I am glad that the new Leader of the House is in his place. He will come to understand that the issue will not go away and that many strong feelings are held on it.
  Lord Whitty: My Lords, I accept that an inquiry will be necessary. I do not accept that we should divert the expertise that is currently still involved in the eradication of the disease—the outcome of which is not yet certain—to provide the information and historic analysis required for any inquiry to come to sensible conclusions. It is sensible to wait until the disease is eradicated before the establishment of an inquiry. Therefore, I do not accept the implications of his remarks.
  The veterinary service has introduced a system of licensing for shearers and dippers which should control movements. Compared with the normal process at this time of the year, there is much greater control over movements on and off the farm and of the individual personnel involved.
  Lord Hylton: My Lords, can the Minister confirm that there is now no delay between diagnosis of the disease and slaughter of the animals affected? Are normal markets beginning to reopen in the de-restricted areas?
  Lord Whitty: My Lords, if the noble Lord refers to livestock markets, they are not operating in normal circumstances. There are restrictions on movements throughout the country. Therefore, in general, the markets are not operating normally.
  We have a target of 24 hours from identification. In the majority of cases, that is now being met. In all cases it is being met within 36 hours.
  Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, has the Minister noted the comparisons between outbreak in 1967 and the current outbreak? One comparison—it has been ignored—is that since 1967, and during the 1980s when the previous government were in power, there was a substantial reduction in the number of qualified staff employed by the Ministry of Agriculture. Those of us who expressed unease or criticism of that reduction now feel that our comments are vindicated.
  42
  Does my noble friend accept that had we had the number of staff which existed in 1967 the disease may well have been encountered earlier and that malpractice with regard to the movement of livestock may have been less likely? While it is fashionable to argue against regulation, is it not clear that regulations concerning animal health need to be supervised properly and adequately enforced?
  Lord Whitty: My Lords, it would not be sensible to agree entirely with my noble friend that the cause of the rapid spread of this outbreak in the past was attributable to lack of staff. Clearly that is one aspect which any review of the control of this disease would need to address. The department is aware of that aspect.
  I agree with my noble friend that the proper enforcement of regulations and the appropriate nature of those regulations are part of what we need to learn from this sad episode. Contrary to what is sometimes said, clearly some of the problems of the agriculture industry stem from the non-application of regulations rather than over-regulation. It behoves everyone to recognise that. In future, the regulations governing the movement and treatment of stock should not only be observed but properly inspected and enforced.
  Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior: My Lords, despite the good news of only a single case of foot and mouth disease in the past day or so, does the Minister agree that the urgency of this emergency is still with us? That urgency must be communicated to everyone associated with livestock. Many of the recent outbreaks have been due to people ignoring the biosecurity regulations. I hope that those concerned with the opening up of footpaths and the easing of restrictions, desirable as that may well be, w ill consult closely with the relevant authorities which know something about foot and mouth disease.
  Complacency can creep easily into our thinking. The virus is no respecter of complacency. It is one of the most infectious viruses of which we know. I hope that the noble Lord's department will impress upon people in agriculture and the rural environment the need to respect the biosecurity which has been laid down.
  Lord Whitty: My Lords, I agree with the thrust of the noble Lord's remarks. Clearly, biosecurity is essential. Whatever caused some of the initial outbreaks in the areas with which we are now concerned, it is clear that the spread within those areas is in part due to the lack of observing relatively elementary biosecurity rules on-farm and in terms of transport. That needs to be addressed. The farming community and those who transport livestock need to be well aware of that. The Government insist on that. Others in the rural area, including those who would use the footpaths, need to be aware of the restrictions. It is necessary to ensure that any lifting of footpath restrictions takes account of the biosecurity implications.

  43
  I do not regard one case overnight as good news. As long as we have just one case, it is still bad news and we still have to tackle the issue.
  Lord Palmer: My Lords, what is the time delay between vets in private practice or hunt servants submitting their bills for helping to cull livestock to help to eradicate this terrible disease and them receiving payment?
  Lord Whitty: My Lords, I shall need to give the noble Lord a detailed reply. There have been some complaints about delay in payment for veterinary services and other payments. It is important that we meet those obligations as rapidly as we can. We are committed to ensuring that those payments are made with due dispatch. I shall let the noble Lord know what the current delays are and how the situation is—hopefully—improving.
  Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, the Government's attitude to an inquiry into this outbreak of foot and mouth disease contrasts starkly with their attitude to an inquiry into BSE. That outbreak began a long time ago and, sadly, is still not over, yet paradoxically we have already had the conclusions from the inquiry while the disease continues. I simply make that point for what it is worth.
  The Minister implied, even if he did not specifically state, that the Government were thinking of possibly having to override local authorities that appear reluctant to open up access to the countryside with the speed that the Government think desirable. We all thoroughly understand the Government's desire to help to rejuvenate the rural economy. In his response to the Opposition Front Benches, the Minister appeared to imply that that would be done after consultation. Will he clarify that? If he was correct in the Statement and the Government are planning to override local authorities, under which power will they do so? He will understand that I am suffering from a memory failure.
  Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord is not suffering from a memory failure. The situation is slightly complicated. More details of the announcement on footpaths will be given later. The animal disease regulations give us the powers to which I referred. A few local authorities that have had no incidence of the disease throughout have been somewhat reluctant to end the closure of footpaths. In those circumstances, we want blanket restrictions to be lifted. My reference to consultation with local people and local councils relates to areas where there is still some disease and the restrictions have not been completely removed.
  Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, is the Minister aware that along the side of the A19 near Yarm, sheep have been penned and shot in full view of the public? That has caused great upset. If that has to be done in public view, is it not possible to provide some form of shielding?
  Lord Whitty: My Lords, it would obviously be desirable to do so. However, in order to carry out the necessary tasks, a number of things that we would rather not do have had to be done. The difficulties of rounding up, executing and disposing of sheep have undoubtedly caused distress to those on farms, to those passing and to neighbouring communities. It is regrettable, but in the circumstances some such instances are bound to occur.
  Lord Plumb: My Lords, the Minister is well aware of the gravity of the situation, economically and socially, for many families throughout the country. Is he fully aware of the self-help available through the Addington fund and the various stress associations? Various bodies have been raising funds to help those who are suffering. For example, 240 of us in one organisation raised £30,000 on Saturday night. I hope that the Minister will fulfil the Government's commitment to match pound for pound everything that has been raised through the various charities.
  Is the Minister prepared to read or re-read the 1969 statement of the committee of inquiry? It runs to only 264 pages. A lot of the evidence gathered at that time is relevant to today's circumstances. Apart from the fact that the virus has been far worse this time, we could almost repeat that report, which took evidence from 1,000 people.
  Various people have called for a committee of inquiry. Now is the time to plan for that, not six months from now. It is imperative to look at the situation today before we go any further.
  Is the Minister aware of a report in Farmers Weekly last week that referred to telephone calls made by an individual or individuals to farmers offering to take infected material on to farms for a cash payment to make sure that the farmer can claim compensation? If that story is anywhere near the truth, it is devastating. The police certainly need to be aware of it and to try to get hold of the rascals who are causing the problem.
  On the real issue, will the Minister give an assurance that we shall think about following the practice of the United States and Australia and stopping imports of products from countries where foot and mouth disease exists? We have imported meat from 26 such countries over the past two years. I understand that 37,000 tonnes of pig meat has come in from those countries. We have been sitting on a time bomb, which has now exploded like a volcano, spreading the problem far and wide across the country.
  Stopping the use of swill is also of great concern. Will the Minister give me an assurance that swill feed will be stopped forthwith?
  Lord Whitty: My Lords, there were quite a few questions there. I very much respect the experience of the noble Lord, Lord Plumb, on the issue, in particular his involvement in the post-1967 inquiry. The 264-page report is a lot shorter than some of the briefing that has fallen on my desk in recent days. I shall pay great attention to that report.

  45
  We are addressing imports nationally and at EU level. We need to tighten up on that. I am also aware of the reports in Farmers Weekly and elsewhere of the despicable practice that the noble Lord mentioned. However, as with other stories that are going around, it is difficult to pin down if and where the practice has happened. It is important that we identify and deal with the matter, if we can, and that we establish the facts rather than the anecdotes.
  I have said what I intended to say about the inquiry. I shall simply repeat to your Lordships' House that, following the experience of this disease, we all need to learn the lessons. The best way in which to do so may not be through inquiries as they have been conducted in the past. Nevertheless, we are absolutely certain that we need to be open about how we learn those lessons.

  Address in Reply to Her Majesty's Most Gracious Speech
  4.30 p.m.
  Debate resumed on the Motion moved yesterday by the Lord Archer of Sandwell—namely, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty as follows:
  "Most Gracious Sovereign—We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled, beg leave to thank Your Majesty for the most gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament."
  The Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg): My Lords, we now begin five days of debate on the gracious Speech. I welcome both that constitutional affairs has been chosen for the first day and that we now have a Select Committee on the constitution, appointed on 8th February under the distinguished chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth.
  Today's debate and the establishment of that committee reflect the major significance of our programme of constitutional reform. It has prompted debate in Parliament and the country about the nature and effectiveness of our institutions, their mutual relationships and our sense of national identity. The Government have both contributed to and learned from that debate.
  But we remain convinced that we were right to have removed the hereditary peerage from this House, subject to a temporary right for one-tenth to remain; right to have created the Scottish Parliament and the National Assembly for Wales; right to press ahead with democratic self-government for Northern Ireland as part of the peace process; right to create the regional development agencies; right to restore an all-London tier of government; right to have put the Freedom of Information Act on the statute book; and right to have introduced the Human Rights Act. That Act will stand as a major legislative and constitutional monument to this Government's first term of office.
  46
  Our programme of constitutional reform was designed to increase public engagement in democracy and to regenerate our national identity by strengthening what is best about Britain. "British" signifies the unity and the intermingling of the nations that make up our country. It means a strong civic society and vibrant communities with an influential local voice. It means being internationalist in spirit, learning from our neighbours and providing an example to them in turn.
  Most of all, it should mean fairness and equality for all our people before the law: tolerance for the many cultures of our multi-racial society—not a flattening process of assimilation—and a culture of liberty and effective protection of human rights under the rule of law. Britain does have a special identity: strong local communities; democratic values; freedom under the law; creativity; an enterprising spirit; diversity; tolerance; strong protection for human rights; and the ability to draw the best from a wide range of cultures.
  What, emphatically, being British does not mean is having 750 hereditary legislators sitting in the House of Lords; being anti-European and inward looking; having Westminster hold an "England first" straitjacket over the diversity of the regions and nations in the Union; having no principled protection for human rights; and having our great national institutions, which represent our community spirit, such as the NHS, privatised.
  Our constitutional reforms draw on the best of what is British so as to rejuvenate our democracy, build a society that includes and celebrates differences, and revives people's sense that public bodies are relevant to their beliefs, their lives and their ambitions for themselves and their families.
  Devolution does not signal antagonistic confrontation but beneficial diversity; and diversity is not to be feared but embraced as a source of strength and innovation. A drug enforcement agency for Scotland may show the rest of Britain how to tackle the scourge of drug addiction and trafficking. The National Assembly for Wales's new services for the elderly may point the way forward in that area of care. The RDAs in the English regions are making pioneering advances in regional development and are attracting inward investment from which other parts of the UK can learn. Diversity is about the distinct parts of a whole learning from each other.
  Devolution will free the nations and regions of the United Kingdom to find innovative local solutions for local problems and to learn from each other. To see the devolved institutions, elected by the people they serve, taking forward policies that will best improve life in their own areas, co-operating with this Parliament but not totally dictated to by it, and influenced by the other devolved institutions but not slavishly copying them—that is our aim.
  Devolution will strengthen the Union because it gives expression to existing identities. To try to stifle those identities would be to fuel the arguments of those who want to tear the Union apart. Instead, under our devolution settlement, a new Britain is emerging with

  47
  a revised conception of citizenship that recognises the mix of cultures and traditions that form our Union. It is intrinsic to the nature of our Union over hundreds of years that we have multiple political allegiances. We can be Scottish and British, or Pakistani and British, or Cornish and British and European.
  We have begun to remedy the neglect of the English regions. RDAs continue to improve competitiveness and co-ordinate economic development and regeneration more effectively. Regional chambers of local councillors and other partners have given each region a focused voice. The party opposite would undo all that, removing a form of local expression that is already showing benefits in favour of—I am not quite sure what.
  The Human Rights Act is already proving itself. It will stand the test of time. The prophets of doom predicted that we would see chaos as the result of incorporation: courts clogged up with absurd cases; fundamental laws overturned; common sense thrown out the window; and a criminals' charter under which the police would be rendered powerless. That is all nonsense and has now been so proved. We prepared extremely carefully for implementation. That has paid off—decisions have been sensible, the bulk of our laws have been found to be compatible and the courts have taken the Act in their stride.
  The Government introduced the Act because we wanted a culture of respect for human rights and responsibilities to become embedded in our society. The Act reflects a new partnership—a co-operative endeavour between the Executive, Parliament and the judiciary to deliver a new, rights-based culture. So, as a Government we do not see the rare successful human rights challenges as "defeats" for the Government. The working out of the Act by the courts is not an obstacle to good administration but, on the contrary, an essential element on the path to achieving it.
  Our reformed constitution and institutions of government now need to be turned to strengthening communities, enabling them to exercise their rights and fulfil their responsibilities. Our overhaul of Whitehall will support that process. A streamlined Home Office will be able to focus on fighting crime and making our communities safer. The many interests of those who live in our rural communities will be better served by being the responsibility of a single department. The education department will now be able to concentrate on the vital work of improving standards, especially in secondary schools, building on the work done in primary schools in the last Parliament and transforming access to higher education, driving forward the opportunities for everyone to benefit from lifelong learning.
  Transport will benefit from the new departmental arrangements. We have promised £180 billion of investment in transport, with 25 local rail and tram schemes. Regional development agencies will benefit from being the responsibility of the department responsible for regional economic development generally. The new Department for Work and Pensions will continue the reform of the welfare state,
  48
  enabling a more co-ordinated approach to providing opportunities for work for those who can work and help for those who cannot. My own department has taken over from the Home Office a number of its wider constitutional responsibilities, including human rights, freedom of information and data protection.
  We have already made major innovations in the electoral systems that are used in the UK for the devolved administrations, the European Parliament and the London Assembly. The commission headed by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, made proposals for electoral reform at Westminster. Our manifesto confirmed that we will review the experience of the electoral system for the devolved institutions and the report of the commission of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, to assess whether changes might be made to the electoral system for the other place.
  We are committed to enhancing the scrutiny functions of regional chambers. In some parts of the country, however, there may be a desire for a stronger regional political voice. We said in the previous Parliament that provision should be made for directly elected regional government in regions in which people decided in a referendum to support that and where predominantly unitary local government is established. That remains our commitment.
  However, we believe that if people choose to have elected assemblies, those assemblies should involve democracy, not bureaucracy. They should be primarily strategic and take on powers from a range of unelected regional bodies in areas such as economic development, transport, the environment and planning. They should not duplicate the legislative powers of Westminster or take on responsibility for running local services such as schools, hospitals or refuse collection. They should be representative and incorporate a wide range of expertise. We believe that strong English regions will strengthen local government and the United Kingdom, not weaken them.
  As was said in the gracious Speech, we will. following consultation, introduce legislation to implement the final stage of reform of the House of Lords. That will include the removal of the remaining hereditary Peers and put the House of Lords Appointments Commission on a statutory footing. We have given our support to the report and conclusions of the Wakeham commission and we will seek through consultation to find a means of implementing those conclusions in the most effective way possible.
  The gracious Speech also promises a draft Bill to reform the criminal justice system and to modernise the criminal courts. Lord Justice Auld was asked to carry out an independent review of the criminal courts. We expect to receive that review shortly. His recommendations will be essential in helping us to make our legislative decisions to promote far-reaching improvements in the criminal justice system.
  So, my Lords, we are proud of what we have achieved so far on constitutional reform. However, we have a little way to go to complete the process of re-engaging the people with their institutions and their sense of belonging to a country that is fair and inclusive.
  4.43 p.m.
  Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, it is with some humility that I follow the speech of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. Through legislation that the noble and learned Lord has promoted, he has changed the face of Britain perhaps more than any other Minister in the Government.
  Personally, I regret many of those changes and believe that some of their effects are still unknown and may lead to a substantial growth in expensive bureaucracy. None the less, those changes make the noble and learned Lord a considerable figure in the Government. The annexation by his department of large provinces of a humiliated Home Office shows that his ambitions have not yet run their course. We shall watch him with close interest—and, I must warn him, with some scepticism—to see where he now wishes to lead us.
  Many important issues are covered by the rubric of "constitutional affairs". Some of those issues were touched on in the gracious Speech, but some were not. I will leave it to my noble friend Lord Kingsland, who will wind up on behalf of the Opposition, to explore some of those matters.
  As there is no opportunity during the next few days to debate the dangerous situation in Northern Ireland, I would like briefly to touch on it. Once again, our sympathies go to the brave members of the RUC and their families, who have had to bear so much in the front line for so long. We will support the Government in anything that they do to back the security forces in maintaining the peace in Northern Ireland.
  We in this House have in recent years been made to swallow many distasteful concessions to terrorist organisations. There is increasing impatience with the terrorists' failure to make any meaningful gesture in response to disarmament. We cannot debate that in detail today. However, when the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House replies to this debate, will he give the House an undertaking that if the present situation deteriorates further, or if talks reach an impasse and the First Minister, Mr Trimble, leaves office on or after 1st July, he will enable an urgent full-day's debate on Northern Ireland before the Recess? He might also make it clear which Minister in this House will be answering in relation to Northern Ireland now that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, has moved on.
  I shall today concentrate on the future of this House but I shall not follow the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor in his eulogy on the constitutional reforms of the past. In the gracious Speech, we heard that the Government were planning to consult before introducing further legislation on your Lordships' House. That is welcome. It is in line with what we have long been asking for, with what the Liberal Democrats have been asking for and with what Cross-Bench Peers and many outside observers have been asking for. It was also envisaged by the noble and learned Lord in 1997 when he wrote in the manifesto—rightly, I believe—that there should be a Joint Committee of
  50
  both Houses to consider all the options for the future, including those relating to composition, and that it should make recommendations.
  My party accepted that without reservation. We still think that that is the right way forward. I suspect that Peers in other parties may feel the same way. We for our part will play an active and positive role in any genuine consultation that occurs. That consultation should be as open as possible in every way. Parliamentary discussions must include all the main parties and, given the current composition of the House of Lords, any Joint Committee must be large enough to include voices from the Cross Benches and the Bishops' Bench, too.
  The Government have wisely decided to concentrate on public services in this Parliament. Although consultations must not be unduly protracted, we surely now have ample time to reach appropriate conclusions, which will strengthen this House and Parliament. It would be helpful to the consultation process if the Government were to publish, perhaps without prejudice, a draft Bill to let us know more about their thinking. The Labour Party's latest manifesto was as clear as mud on the way forward. However, a proposal has been included in the gracious Speech. The inference is that a Bill must be in a well-advanced state. It would be statesmanlike of the Government if they were to break a four-year silence and set out their thinking on the details of stage two. We have become quite familiar with broad-brush phrases, which were again used by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor today, even if the word "democratic", which featured so prominently in 1997, has been buried. It is time for all of us to look at the small print.
  I have been in the House for a number of years. As I said yesterday, I recall the old House with affection and respect, as many other noble Lords will do. However, we have now moved on and we must look forward. I understand the political imperatives that lay behind the 1999 change. There was an imbalance in numbers and the problem—albeit sometimes exaggerated—of backwoodsmen. There was a feeling that, however good the arguments that the opposition advanced, a Conservative government could always defeat them. Let it also be said that there was some ancient resentment of hereditary Peers and a sense that the Labour Party had old scores to settle.
  There was business to be done but it has now been done. It is surely now time for the Government, too, to move on. When there is a widespread perception of a Parliament in crisis, rattling the sabre at a pimp of hereditary Peers is not the real issue that faces us. After all, the Prime Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Coddenham, have chosen 39 Peers between them in just the past eight weeks. More than half of the Labour Peers—114 of them—are Blair creations. That figure puts the remaining 51 Conservative hereditary Peers in a certain context. And there are no backwoodsmen any more. Gone are the days when Peers grumble that they had seen people in the Lobbies whom they could not even recognise.

  51
  There are 92 hereditary Peers of all parties remaining in this House. Yet 245 life Peers have been appointed by the Prime Minister in the past four years.
  If a flood of hereditary Peers was a democratic monstrosity, as Mr Blair said, what are we now to make of that cascade of patronage? Are we to see it as a triumphant, modern and representative democracy? Let there be no doubt that when we legislate on stage two, the legitimacy of every type of Peer will be put under the microscope, and quite justifiably so.
  The age of settling party scores on the composition of this House should be over. That is last century's business. We must now turn to the future. Securing that future in this House and building its authority will not be easy if the executive in this Parliament show themselves as intolerant of being asked to think again as they were in the last one. But I think it must be done.
  I cannot be alone in noticing a spirit of concern in the land about the power of the executive in modern Britain; about the need for both Houses of Parliament to stir themselves. Of course, we cannot act for another place but we can defend the freedoms and the powers of this House and we can deflect botched change which would not enhance its authority. The task of building a better House is not that of one party nor is it even the Government's business. It is Parliament's business. It is, in a very real sense, the people's business for it is in Parliament that the liberties of the people should be guarded.
  While on that point, perhaps I may put one matter quite bluntly. You do not justify the restriction of trial by jury or force a House of Parliament to change its views simply by writing it into a manifesto. Parliament never has and never should accept such restraint, however respectful it must be, as we always are, of securing the fair passage of the Queen's business.
  I detect that the Government betray some uncertainty about what they want for stage two. That is quite understandable for the questions are complex and profoundly far-reaching. Having said that, the Government cannot now expect to hold a gun to our heads and the heads of the Liberal Democrats and expect us to work only to their prospectus. That is not an attack on the Government, nor is it a threat to them. It is a statement of how difficult the issues are. There are huge issues which need to be debated and resolved as we move to create a stronger House: for example, issues relating to the size of the House; what limits to set on that size; how long Peers should stay; how we all get here and so on. We need to find the right basis for an appointments commission, statutory or otherwise, and we have not yet done so. We need to tackle the issue of rampant Prime Ministerial patronage, which is every bit as anachronistic as the now banished imbalances of hereditary Peers. If we have elected Peers, we need to determine on what basis they are elected; how many there are; how long they will sit; and who they represent. We need to find ways to defend the independent element in the House, whose numbers were so reduced by the 1999 changes; and I believe that we must resolve to maintain the presence of the judiciary and the Bishops in this House.
  52
  We also need to address issues of the other faith groups. We need to decide whether to change the name of the House and whether to separate the peerage from membership of the House. We need to consider the impact of those changes on the powers, the role and the functions of this House. That in itself is one of the most important considerations. That is an enormous agenda and it is an opportunity which, if lost, may never recur.
  It is also a challenging enterprise in which I very much looking forward to playing a part, as does the rest of my party. It could be the beginning to unlocking the door which has been steadily pushed shut on parliamentary authority and liberties. Or it could go horribly astray and lead to further damage to this House and Parliament. For in some ways, the issues at odds between Parliament and the executive are as acute as they were in the 17th century.
  Against that background, I was struck by an extraordinary sentence in the press briefing issued by the Cabinet Office yesterday. It stated:
  "There is no intention to begin from first principles".
  Can that really be true? After all, where else would one begin? Do the Government expect other parties to consider consultation legitimate if we are bound to discussion only on the principles that they choose to lay down? If they think that, they may find themselves rudely disabused.
  I wonder whether Ministers really consider the report of my noble friend Lord Wakeham to be the only basis for discussion. My noble friend Lord Wakeham took the first major look at the House of Lords for over a generation. I very much look forward to hearing his contribution later this afternoon. He produced an outstanding report. He cleared much ground. He clarified a number of important points. But his work was done, necessarily, in a hurry because the Government then said that they wanted to move on before the last election, and he reached no firm conclusion on composition. In fact, he produced three conclusions.
  Since then, things have changed so quickly that some of the report's admirable analysis is already out of date. Of course, if the Government do not publish a draft Bill—and I think they should—then the conclusions of my noble friend should be uppermost in our minds. But are the Government saying, for example, that the inventive ideas in the report of my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern have nothing to teach us or that the powerful arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Richard, are irrelevant? Perhaps I may say how sorry I am not the noble Lord is not playing a part in this debate. That may be the Government's view but it is not our view. We think it is untenable. Parliament, in considering its future, cannot be constrained within the parameters of one report, however excellent. That is no basis for proper consultation. I believe that the Government need to understand that.
  The world has moved on. The questions that were relevant in 1997 are not the questions of 2002. The frontiers of what was necessary and acceptable have

  53
  been moved. Therefore, I hope that the consultation will be genuine and held with open minds, an open agenda and if not an open end, then no artificial early cut-off.
  I shall take my lead from the noble and learned Lord and I shall resist the temptation to discuss those and other issues in detail. But we can make clear that we shall not accept, and should not accept, an imposed solution. We should not let one party put through a token solution and call it stage two. That simply will not work. We have one opportunity to strengthen this House and we must take it.
  In conclusion, I welcome meaningful cross-party discussion. That is the right basis to go forward. In 1999, the Government dealt with the clear grievance of the imbalance in numbers and the hereditary peerage. Now is the time to bury old slogans and divisions and to work together to build a new House. It is time for a mature look at Parliament and its place in the nation. So we shall join positively and constructively with the Government, with the Liberal Democrats and other groups and parties. Our objectives should be clear: to create a House even more effective and with even more authority to probe and test whichever executive are in power. That must be the aim we set ourselves and no other solution should satisfy us or satisfy the country.
  4.58 p.m.
  Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I begin by saying that we are delighted but by no means surprised to see the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor back in the place which he held before the general election. I also extend a warm welcome to the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, on her appearance as a Minister in the Lord Chancellor's Department. If government departments were football teams, I think that the Lord Chancellor's Department would have to pay the Foreign and Commonwealth Office a very large transfer fee for her. As a distinguished barrister, she must feel very much that she is coming home to be in the Lord Chancellor's Department.
  I start by taking stock. The last Parliament saw more constitutional change than any Parliament since the Parliament elected in December 1910 and perhaps since the Parliament of 1832. Those reforms were strongly supported by us on these Benches and, indeed, most of them had been advocated by us long before the conversion of the Labour Party to the same ideas.
  Those reforms restored Parliament to Scotland and created an assembly for Wales. Devolution to Scotland was essential for the preservation of the United Kingdom. Indeed, had it not been for the folly of your Lordships' House in rejecting Home Rule for Ireland in the 19th century, I believe that that country might still have been part of the United Kingdom. Welsh devolution has presented problems. There have been complaints about the absence of the power of primary legislation, but my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresham will speak on the question of devolution for Wales.
  54
  We now need to move forward with devolution to the English regions. Regional identity is undoubtedly stronger in some regions of England than others. However, in some places there is a clear demand for it. As and when support for regional government is demonstrated by a referendum within that region, I believe that we should set up regional assemblies with real powers, including tax-raising powers devolved from Whitehall. The absence from the gracious Speech of any promise of enabling legislation or, indeed, any other sign of support for meaningful regional devolution is something which we greatly regret.
  I turn to human rights. As the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor stated, the Human Rights Act was a great step forward for the protection of rights in the United Kingdom. I pay a genuine tribute to the noble and learned Lord for his leadership in getting that Act on to the statute book.
  As he said, the Human Rights Act got off to a good start, thanks to the sensible attitude of the courts. As yet, there have been no signs of the outburst of litigation that followed, for example, the introduction of the Canadian Charter of Rights. We welcome the setting up of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which has done good work in its short existence. However, it may not be reconstituted until October, which we believe would be a matter for serious concern. We still need a human rights commission to inform the public about its rights and to help to enforce them.
  We also note with interest the transfer of responsibility for human rights, freedom of information and data protection from the Home Office to the Lord Chancellor's Department. The Freedom of Information Act is certainly not as strong as it should have been. Even so, it will be a big step forward in developing a culture of openness in government. We want to see it implemented as soon as possible and in due course strengthened. The transfer of responsibilities to the Lord Chancellor's Department suggests that that department is becoming an embryo ministry of justice. That is something for which we have pressed and which we would welcome. We need to see further progress in that direction. We need to end the anomalous position of the Lord Chancellor as both head of an important government department and head of the judiciary. I believe that the Lord Chancellor can no longer in practice sit as a judge because there are so few cases in which he could sit without running into problems with the right to fair trial under Article 6 of the European Convention.
  We acknowledge the considerable improvements in monitoring the process of selection of judges that has been implemented in the past year. However, we believe that the role of the Lord Chancellor in the selection of judges should be transferred to an independent appointments commission, and that the Law Lords should become part of a separate supreme

  55
  court distinct from the House of Lords. I agreed with much of what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde. However, that is one issue on which we clearly disagree.
  There has been considerable progress on elections and electoral reform. Following the implementation of the Neill report, we now have an Electoral Commission; the publication of names of major donors; a ban on foreign donations and limits on spending in campaigns. However, anyone who saw the posters put up by either the Conservative Party or the Labour Party during the election campaign will realise that they were a total waste of money.
  We need to reduce further the limits on campaign spending and introduce limits on the size of donations. There is a real danger to democracy if parties become dependent upon a small number of large donors. I believe that the fact that the Conservatives were offered and accepted £10 million in total from two individuals, Mr Stuart Wheeler and Sir Paul Getty, is an assault on democracy.
  We will support proposals to allow positive steps to be taken to increase the representation of women in Parliament, which is a regrettable necessity. In principle, no one group in society should be given priority over another. However, the imbalance of women in the House of Commons—I have to say, with some shame, in my own party as well as in others—makes it plain that action is now needed. The best way to improve the representation of women without positive discrimination is by an electoral system based on proportional representation. In the elections to the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the European Parliament, the proportion of women elected was far higher than that under the first-past-the-post system which we still have in Westminster.
  There has been some progress on electoral reform. In Great Britain we now have forms of proportional representation in the Scottish Parliament elections, the Welsh Assembly, the Greater London Assembly and the European Parliament. Those are moves in the right direction, although the closed-list system for the European elections needs to be replaced by either an open-list system or STV. However, the Government's shunting aside of the report by the Jenkins committee and their refusal to commit themselves to anything other than a vague promise of a review after the next Scottish and Welsh elections means that we are stuck with the present system for at least the rest of the present Parliament. That is a system under which 42 per cent of the popular vote has given the Government a majority of 165 in the other place. That means that your Lordships' House as now constituted is more representative of public opinion than is the House of Commons.
  That brings me to the issue which will probably be of most interest to your Lordships House; that is, the reform of this House. We have had stage one and the House is the better for it. No insult is intended to former hereditary Members, many of whom made valuable contributions to the work of your Lordships' House. But in terms of party strengths, this House is
  56
  much more representative of the country than it used to be or, as I have said, than the House of Commons is now. As the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, stated, we are more legitimate. We are more willing to exercise the powers we have, as we showed in the last Parliament by the rejection of the mode of trial Bill and by forcing the Government to arrange free mailshots for the candidates in the London mayoral election.
  From the moment that the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, persuaded the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to accept the interim retention of 92 hereditary Peers, it was clear that there would soon have to be a second House of Lords Act. In the new Bill, the remaining rights of hereditary Peers will have to go; we completely support the Government on that. However, beyond that a fog descends on the Government's intentions. The Wakeham report is an unsatisfactory guide to reform. The leader of the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham's, own party did not suggest anything other.
  On the issue of powers, there is one proposal in Wakeham which we strongly oppose; that is, the proposal to abolish the power of veto of your Lordships' House over secondary legislation. Secondary legislation receives an entirely inadequate scrutiny from either House. The only real protection from Government abuse of the power of secondary legislation is the power of your Lordships' House to reject it. When that happens, the Government must come back with an amended instrument, as happened with the London mailshot regulations or, in the last resort, an act of primary legislation.
  I am a member of the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation. That committee has an important constitutional role. Under the outstanding chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Weedon, it has been widely acknowledged as having carried out its duties with impartiality and success. However, if the power of veto over secondary legislation was removed, I believe that that committee would find it much harder to recommend to your Lordships House to accept a wide degree of delegation of powers to the extent that is now routine.
  I turn finally to the composition of the new House of Lords. The objective of the Liberal Democrats is to achieve a wholly elected body. That does not mean that we would oppose a reasonable compromise providing for a minority of appointed Members to go with the majority of elected Members, but the figures of fewer than 100 elected Members, as proposed by two of the three options in the Wakeham report, are far too small. The Wakeham report proposes that the Appointments Commission should appoint more or less the whole of the rest of the Members of your Lordships' House.
  I have to say that the commission chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, did not get off to a good start. Its first list met with a howl of derision in the media. To some extent, that was unfair. Talk of "people's Peers" came from the spin doctors of

  57
  10 Downing Street and not from the commission. As individuals, the people on the list are good choices and we will welcome them to your Lordships' House.
  The commission may be a good way of selecting a limited number of independent Members of your Lordships' House to be selected for their expertise which will add value to our debates and to the work of our Select Committees. But, surely, even the Government must now recognise that the commission is an inappropriate body to appoint the majority of Members of your Lordships' House. It would, in effect, be an electorate of seven people with power to elect most Members of one of the two Houses of Parliament. When one talks of "rotten boroughs", that puts Old Sarum deep into the shade.
  We welcome the Government's offer of consultation but the vital question is whether it will be real consultation. The Government's earlier stand was that they would offer no more than a joint committee of both Houses to report on the implementation of proposals dictated by the Government. If consultations are to be meaningful, we must look at the substance of the proposals as well as at their implementation. In that respect, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde. We must at the end of the day have a House which can carry out its duties of revision and scrutiny with skill and authority.
  Yesterday, the committee of the Hansard Society published a powerful report on the shortcomings of parliamentary scrutiny in both Houses. It is ironic that on the same day the Government and the Conservatives in the House of Commons conspired to defer the appointment of Select Committees until October for reasons internal to the Conservative Party. That inhibits scrutiny for the next four months.
  If the consultations are to be real, we are prepared to play our full part in them, but in doing so our aim will be the same as that of our Liberal predecessors 90 years ago when they said in the preamble to the Parliament Act 1911 that,
  "it is intended to substitute for the House of Lords as it at present exists a Second Chamber constituted on a popular instead of hereditary basis".
  That means membership of your Lordships' House not by descent; not by patronage of the Prime Minister; and not even through appointment by a high-minded and independent commission. It means membership by the choice of the people.
  5.13 p.m.
  The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth: My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this part of the debate on the gracious Speech. I am also grateful to noble Lords who have spoken and for the many points which have been raised. I look forward to the contribution to be made later by my friend the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bristol, who for good or ill happens to have been my ethics tutor at college.
  I want to address two areas that relate to the theme of today's proceedings. I want first to make a couple of points on the reform of this Chamber and then some
  58
  observations on participation in our democracy. I was delighted to hear in the gracious Speech the Government's commitment to implement, after consultation, the next stage of the reform of this Chamber along the lines recommended by the Royal Commission chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham. I want strongly to say how good it was to hear the words of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, on consultation.
  The key question is whether the proposals will enable Parliament to serve the people better. I believe that broadly to be the case. It is surely right that this House should have a complementary role to that of the House of Commons in such a way as not to change its democratic primacy but rather to hold the executive properly to account. As a relative newcomer to this House, I have learnt to value the experience and the wisdom that is abundant here. I want to support calls for wider "representativeness" but I also want to speak up for what might be called the "non-professionalism" of this Chamber.
  As regards "representativeness", I want first to echo the response of the Church of England to the Wakeham proposals, which were to endorse the idea that there should be wider participation on these Benches so as to include other Churches and other faith communities. That echoes what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said about diversity. I hope that the way it is explored will involve full consultation which will also take into account the kind of service the House wants. However, it should also deal with the detail of how nominations are to be handled. We on these Benches would want fully to endorse what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, about membership of that Joint Committee.
  The Church of England's response to the Wakeham report also dealt with the work of the Lords Spiritual and made it clear that we are here to speak for the nation in things spiritual, including many moral and religious questions. We always come here after regular contact with leaders of other Churches and the other faith communities, to say nothing of our collaboration almost on a daily basis with other local leaders in local government, prisons and education.
  Moreover, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford said in a debate here in March last year, we are not here to press for privileges for the Church of England, but to express a far wider voice; a role which we have been trying to take more seriously by better organisation of our attendance. I can also vouch for the fact that when diocesan bishops arc chosen, national considerations are also taken into account in addition to the needs of the local diocese. That includes participation in this Chamber.
  I realise of course that "representativeness" is about much more still. I am aware that there are many walks of life not present here from which we could benefit. In that connection, perhaps the House needs to take account of certain imbalances. Since the efflux of late 1999, the area covered by the diocese of

  59
  Portsmouth—namely, South East Hampshire and the Isle of Wight—has eight MPs, but only two Members in this House.
  The non-professional nature of those of us here who have not been party politicians is perhaps open to more misunderstanding than anything else in the public eye. The fact is that were the Chamber to be exclusively professional, we would be justified in demanding far better and more appropriate remuneration. However, I hasten to add that Bishops—if we were still here—would not benefit in any way as any remuneration would be subtracted from our stipends—and perhaps considerably more!
  The fact remains that history has produced a second Chamber which is made up largely of people who—shall we say?—gain their daily bread elsewhere. That makes us the cheapest second Chamber in the world. I believe that there is something unique in such a nonprofessional membership of experience and breadth and it reflects the wide degree of skills and experience which is increasingly and deliberately sought-after in other public bodies. It is high on the agenda of head hunters and business consultants. I hope that in the plans for reforming this House, that vision is given greater sharpness. It would, among other things, save us from the unfortunate razzmatazz which arose in relation to the "people's Peers" saga recently in the press.
  There is much else that could be said about House of Lords reform. I have long thought that far too much attention has been focused on the composition of this House and not enough on its workings. I particularly welcome the remarks on this matter made yesterday by the Leader of the House. We have a real opportunity to grasp. There are many concerns in this House and beyond about the workings of the House, and I welcome the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, about secondary legislation and the veto.
  Secondly, I should like to make a few comments on political participation, or what has come to be known more broadly as the "democratic deficit". Although I welcome any move to increase representation in both Houses, none the less I perceive an underlying issue that is in danger of being ignored, perhaps because it is cultural and therefore difficult to address. We cannot ignore the fact that a government—I believe that the political persuasion is irrelevant—have been elected with the positive support of only one in four of the electorate. It is a poor reflection on us all that so many chose not to exercise their democratic right. I wish I could say that that represents widespread contentment with the state of the country, but I do not believe that that is the case. In my experience as a university governor, there are many, particularly among the young but by no means exclusively so, for whom the political process has become irrelevant. Some of the answer may lie in the reform of representation, but it is only part of the question.
  At a more profound level, I perceive a disengagement with civic life to an extent which will not be altered by changing the faces at the front, nor by self-indulgent agonising about dressing up at the State
  60
  Opening of Parliament. At present so many institutions in western society suffer from what may be called a phase of passive participation, in the course of which there are sudden surprising outbursts of concern when a particular issue, symbol or personality is at stake. The Christian tradition has long used the Greek word koinonia to describe both the spiritual and social aspects of communion. It is a term, like much else in the repertoire of all religions and philosophies, which was originally secular. It was used as a paradigm for active, responsible participation in ancient Athens, which has often been described as the cradle of democracy.
  As far as concerns Christianity, the spiritual and social aspects of koinonia are seen as both complementary and interdependent—a dynamic inherent in the household of faith. I believe that we need to find a similar koinonia for today's society in which our moral outlook is held in tension with our social make-up. It is a sign that we have so far not achieved that in the political realm that so many people feel themselves disenfranchised from participation in government, whether it be local, regional or national. If we fail to address this fundamental issue of political koinonia, we tinker at the edges to no avail.
  5.24 p.m.
  Lord Wakeham: My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the right reverend Prelate in his remarks. I have known him for a number of years. Certainly, before he came to your Lordships' House I knew that he would make a good contribution to our debates. Every time I hear him speak the correctness of my analysis is confirmed.
  I was somewhat diffident about making a contribution to this debate for two reasons. First, the previous occasion on which I spoke in this debate as a Back-Bencher was 22 years ago, and immediately I sat down I was invited to join the administration. In view of the comments in the Labour Party manifesto in my name, perhaps I should not risk a similar fate in addressing your Lordships this afternoon. Secondly, and perhaps more seriously, I and my colleagues on the Royal Commission have had our say and published our report which contains well over 100,000 words. As for the next stage of implementation, or not, it is for others to consider what we have said and to come to their own conclusions.
  I am grateful that the Government are broadly minded to endorse our report and legislate after further consultation. I am sure that they are right to hold further consultation because of our experiences in the Royal Commission. When we started we had members of all parties and of none; some knew quite a lot about the House of Lords and some knew very little. All the issues that we discussed were very much those that have been raised in the debate so far. There was virtually nothing that we did not discuss. At the end of a year of very hard work, and a considerable amount of goodwill on all sides, we reached a unanimous conclusion as regards our report.

  61
  As my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition said, we offered three options for the number of elected Members. As I have said on a number of occasions, I do not much mind which one of those options is eventually accepted. The fundamental thinking in our report was more important than the exact numbers. I hope, therefore, that the consultations are held in the spirit of attempting to find a solution to this problem. If any party believes that it will get 100 per cent of what it wants, the negotiations will fail. It is not possible to reconcile all the points without a considerable degree of give and take by all those engaged in them.
  I should like to make one or two points which I hope are not too contentious. First, the time to reform and carry out stage two is very ripe. It is not just about the hereditaries. I suspect that a considerable number of the present hereditaries will return as either elected or appointed Members because they are some of the best parliamentarians in this House. The House would be a great deal poorer if they did not contribute to its deliberations, but I accept that they would not be here after stage two as hereditary Peers.
  Secondly, I believe that if we missed the opportunity in the next few years to settle and deliver this reform a long time would elapse before we had another opportunity as favourable as this. It is very important, not just to the hereditaries, that we get it right because of human rights legislation, constitutional changes, devolution and our increasing commitment to and involvement in the European Union. Therefore, I am very anxious that we do it.
  I believe that it is right first to be clear about, and to settle, the role and functions of this House and, as the second stage, to determine its powers. When we have those matters clear in our minds the question of composition is considerably easier to deal with. However, I do not believe that it is right to start with composition. As to composition, I hope that your Lordships continue to recognise that it is the differences between your Lordships' House and the other place which add enormously to the value of this place. If we sought to create a repeat of what went on down the corridor we would fail, and then I for one would be happy to be a unicameralist. I see no point in having a Chamber here that is just the same as the one down the way. It is the differences that we contribute which make us valuable.
  I conclude with one point on which I know not everyone agrees with me. We considered very carefully the question of whether the procedures of this House, which are essentially self-regulating and open and free, were the right way to continue. We came very firmly to the conclusion that that was the right way forward. I hope that whatever final form the House evolves into we keep what is unique but is still very valuable: the self-regulating nature of the Chamber. We have an opportunity to produce a House with more authority and competence, and which is more broadly representative of a modern United Kingdom, than the House of Commons—full as it is bound to be with professional politicians—ever will be. I hope that we seize the opportunity that has been presented to us.
  5.30 p.m.
  Lord Renton: My Lords, I did not envy my noble friend Lord Wakeham being appointed chairman of the very important commission on the composition of the House of Lords and its powers. However, he did remarkably well to achieve unanimity. It was a very strong and distinguished committee. I am glad that the introduction of the so-called democratic principle to our House was made a little flexible and the t my noble friend did not tie himself down to a solution which might have been to our constitution's disadvantage.
  Before I go further, may I say how very pleased I am that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, is now the Leader of the House. The noble and learned Lord was the first Attorney-General for hundreds of years to be appointed from your Lordships' House instead of from another place. That has a bearing on what I shall say about the other place.
  I must be very brief with regard to the Lord Chancellor. The noble and learned Lord was remarkably brief, bearing in mind the ground he had to cover. He described only some parts of our purpose as a parliamentary democracy and ignored, unfortunately, the representation of those people who, in various walks and at various levels of society, have to bear responsibility and whose views should therefore always be considered, and, I hope, represented, in Parliament in one House or the other.
  Our parliamentary democracy surely requires representation of all the people. Having served in the House of Commons for 10 Parliaments and in your Lordships' House for five Parliaments before the present one—for 56 years altogether—I hope that it will not be totally out of place for me to draw one or two conclusions from that almost historic experience. I regret to have to point out that over the years the House of Commons, especially since it reached its climax of representation in 1951 under the great Winston Churchill as Prime Minister, has become steadily less representative and has never been so unrepresentative as it has become as a result of the recent general election.
  I say that, not only because fewer than 50 per cent of the electorate voted at all, nor because only 25 per cent of the electorate elected the Government, but also because the MPs who were elected are not accustomed to much responsibility in their various walks of life—good and nice people though most of them, I believe, are. Certainly the new Member for Huntingdon is. I can say that of him. He received a far bigger majority than I ever did. However, I could not have had the majority of 5,000 which I had 10 times without the support of the wage earners, their families and the few unemployed that there were. The Government Front Bench should not accuse us of being unrepresentative of the people. We are not.
  Of course the trouble is that being an MP now has become a whole-time job. I hope that I am not presuming when I say that I must bear some of the responsibility for that because I was the acting chairman of a Select Committee in the late 1970s which recommended that the House of Commons should

  63
  have committees to cover every government department and its work. That led to an enormous increase in the time that Members of Parliament had to give to their work in the House of Commons. I do not regret that; I believe that it was a necessary step. But, along with the increase in correspondence and the pressures of the media, it has had the effect of turning Members of Parliament of all parties into virtually whole-time politicians. That is why in the present and towards the end of the previous Parliaments there were no Queen's Counsel in the Commons fit to be appointed Attorney-General, although in the past there were always quite a number. I am glad to say that of the 21 Members of your Lordships' House who are to speak today, no fewer than six are Queen's Counsel. That is only a small proportion of us.
  With regard to the Solicitor-General, a splendid lady—I had the pleasure of being at school with her father so I know a little about her—she is not a barrister or a solicitor. She has had limited legal experience at the Brent Law Centre and as a legal officer to the National Council for Civil Liberties. That is a pressure group. It is most unfortunate that the responsibility of the Law Officer in another place is not borne by a qualified Law Officer.
  Pursuing the theme of representation by people with responsibility, one wonders how many doctors, accountants, academics of distinction, farmers, landowners, financiers and leading industrialists are to be found in the House of Commons? There are very few, but we have them. What about the Armed Forces? Scarcely any of today's Members of Parliament have served in the Armed Forces. But in your Lordships' House, we have one Admiral of the Fleet—admittedly he does not attend very often—four Field Marshals who attend frequently and speak in most defence debates, and, I am sure they are proud to say, the Leader of the Cross-Bench peers is a Marshal of the Royal Air Force. Scores of us in your Lordships' House have seen service at one time or another in various ranks in the Armed Forces. That is a further advantage that we have over another place.
  Your Lordships' House contains Peers and Peeresses from many different walks of life—so much so that now we can claim to be "a classless nobility". That is not a contradiction in terms; it describes fully our representation. I believe that that is worthy of us. We also have the advantage of having the 92 hereditary Peers, who were mentioned by my noble friend Lord Strathclyde in his very constructive speech. Their experience covers a wide range of important activities. They include landowners, farmers and, for example, the noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, who is an expert dentist and a famous dance band leader. Those 92 people are a good lot and we would be less representative of the people if we got rid of them.
  Why are we getting rid of them? We are getting rid of them because these poor Labour people, with their limited attitudes, have got it into their heads that hereditary Peers should be ignored. I disagree. If we got rid of them, it would make this House less
  64
  experienced and less representative. One cannot get away from that. The great Sir Winston Churchill rightly said—I heard him say it many years ago—that democracy works badly but that we cannot have any other system. He was right, but if we are not careful, democracy will be further weakened if the Government compel us to reduce the broad, valuable and distinguished membership of this House.
  In the full Session that ended in the late autumn of last year—it was admittedly a fairly long Session your Lordships made 4,619 amendments to government Bills coming to us from the House of Commons. That is twice as many amendments in a Session as we have ever had to make before. That was not merely because of the number of government Bills or because the Bills were long and detailed. It was also largely because the Government gave only a limited opportunity for Members of another place to discuss those Bills and they limited that opportunity by frequently using the guillotine, which we do not use in your Lordships' House. That limited the time available to Members of another place to discuss those Bills. Furthermore, only a limited number of MPs had the expertise to consider the effect of the legislation clause by clause. And so your Lordships, with your zeal and greater expertise and experience, know how to improve the drafting.
  The worst thing that could happen—I hope that I may have the attention of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, whom I respect in many ways, and of the new Leader of the House—would be to turn us into a microcosm of another place.
  5.44 p.m.
  Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, I join other noble Lords in congratulating the noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, on his appointment as Leader of the House. To say that we in north-east Wales bask in his glory would perhaps be putting it a little strongly, but he did merit a paragraph in the Wrexham Evening Leader, and not many people can say that.
  Mostyn has a special place in my heart. In saying that, perhaps I may follow the noble Lord, Lord Renton, along some of the byways down which he has just taken us. In 1964, during the general election of that year, it was the very first place in which I knocked on a wage earner's door. I did not achieve a majority of 10,000. I even skipped my national service. I did not come to the House through the service route. I came to the House through the traditional Liberal route of losing eight general elections in a row. I heard the noble Lord say that we should maintain the hereditary principle. I am a great fan of the noble Lord and it is a pleasure to follow him in the debate. But the grain of this new century runs with the appointment to Parliament of people who are accountable. It is inevitable that the second Chamber will become fully elected. There should be no argument about the principle. It is all a question of timing and of the functions and powers of the House. To continue as we are is completely unacceptable. However, I do not wish today to discuss the composition of the House.

  65
  I welcome the continuing commitment to devolution set out in the gracious Speech and the elegant expression of the rationale of devolution by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. I shall remember his phrase that there should be no flattening by assimilation of the various strands that make up the society in which we live. The publicity received by the National Assembly for Wales has been tied to personalities and has not always been positive. It has concealed the immense hard work which the Assembly and its committees have performed. It illustrates the success of the Welsh Assembly to have legislation coming before Parliament in the way expressed in the gracious Speech, which states:
  "Legislation will be drafted to reform the provision of health services in Wales".
  In the previous Parliament there were 17 Bills in which specific provision was made for Wales at the express request of the Assembly. Some of the early Bills were not satisfactory because, as we said at the time—I refer in particular to the Learning and Skills Bill—they were clumsily drafted. What we are seeing is an innovation and a recognition of the need for specific primary legislation that has been discussed by the Assembly itself. In the previous Session we had the Children's Commissioner for Wales Bill. The will of the Assembly was distorted to some extent when the Bill was drafted in Whitehall to exclude any powers for the Children's Commissioner to report on Home Office and other devolved matters. We called for a constitutional convention whereby if the Assembly wished to have primary legislation passed in a particular way the Government should accept it. The Government, in the person of the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House, responded with a very satisfactory compromise and the Bill became an Act at the very end of the Session. It was a milestone in the devolutionary process.
  With the Bill that is promised for the provision of health services in Wales we can see how policy formulation is now giving some meaning to the labours of the National Assembly. The problem in Wales, as Comparative Indicators 2000, a publication of the Statistics Directorate of the National Assembly, shows, is that there are more elderly people in Wales than in England or Scotland, more people in Wales have long-term illnesses than in England or Scotland and more people visit their GPs. The specific death rates in Wales are lower than in Scotland but higher than in England.
  To address this health problem, the National Assembly set in train a number of reports.Putting Patients First outlined plans to reinvest in the National Health Service and to involve people in health policy development and planning, as well as in the implementation of services. The assembly then produced a report entitled Better Health: Better Wales, setting out a strategy for health improvement. Finally, we had the partnership agreement formed between the Labour administration and the Liberal Democrats in the National Assembly for Wales. Under that agreement, a very substantial increase in
  66
  health funding has been achieved, taking the health budget from £2,620 million in 2001 to £3,601 million in 2003, an increase of 37.4 per cent.
  In the most recent report to be published by the assembly, Improving Health in Wales, the First Minister, Rhodri Morgan, wrote the following:
  "As well as financial stability, the delivery of a renewed Health Service for Wales depends on political stability. This Plan is a product of the Partnership Government at the National Assembly and draws regularly and directly on the Partnership Agreement that was published when the new administration came into being. With the partnership we have the political platform from which the radical ideas contained in this Plan can be driven forward. It is another example of our joint determination to put Wales first in all our thinking and our policy making".
  He went on to say that the plan was,
  "rooted in the Partnership Agreement that forms part of the programme of the Partnership Government".
  In Wales we see policy formation that will inspire the Bill that is to be brought before this House in draft form. The Bill will be debated and then taken back to the National Assembly for further discussion. As Rhodri Morgan pointed out yesterday, it is an innovative way of involving the National Assembly in the primary legislative process.
  What constitutional lessons can be learnt from what is currently taking place in Wales? The first is that proportional representation can produce a partnership government and that the synergy between the two parties involved—the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats—can lead to constructive policy formation and then to constructive legislation which will be of enormous benefit to the people that that government serve.
  The second lesson is that this partnership has not led to the swallowing-up of one party by the other. In the election which took place a few weeks ago, in Cardiff Central the Liberal Democrat vote was not subsumed by Labour, rather it went up by 11.8 per cent. In Ceredigion it was not subsumed by the opposition party, Plaid Cymru. Our vote went up by 10.4 per cent. Furthermore, the Liberal Democrats significantly increased their share of the vote both in Scotland, where the Liberal Democrats are also in partnership with the Labour Party, as well as in Wales. Plaid Cymru, in opposition in Wales, found that its vote was down by 7 per cent in Ynys Mon and Caernarfon, and by 3.5 per cent in Ceredigion—the three parliamentary seats held by Plaid Cymru in the other place. Thus the second lesson to be learnt is that partnership government does not mean that one party is taken over by another. It does mean that we can retain our distinct identities and move forward.
  A further lesson to be learnt is that voter turnout in the general election for Westminster was higher in Wales than it was either in England or in Scotland. Many people had thought that, because many matters covering many areas of policy had been devolved to Wales and Scotland, the people would be less interested in voting in the Westminster elections. In fact, the reverse was true.
  Of course, passing legislation by involving the National Assembly, as we are now to do through the publication of a draft Bill, is not enough in itself. We

  67
  shall have to see how well the Executives—the joint governments—both in Scotland and Wales manage to implement the legislation that they are given. However, it is fair to say that the Labour rural affairs Minister in Wales, Carwyn Jones and the Liberal Democrat rural development Minister in Scotland, Ross Finnie, are perceived to have handled the foot and mouth crisis with far greater competence and understanding than did the agriculture Minister who derived his powers from the Westminster Parliament. Once again, the devolution settlement for Scotland and Wales was seen to be succeeding.
  Perhaps I may make one criticism of constitutional matters covered in the gracious Speech. The Welsh Assembly did ask for parliamentary time to be made available for three further Bills. One was an education (Wales) Bill, to carry out some innovative plans drawn up by the Assembly in the field of education. The second was a census amendment (Wales) Bill, while the third was a St David's Day Bill, which may have been of lesser importance—it is not a matter of massive importance to secure a public holiday on St David's Day. However, it is important that no parliamentary time could be made available for the education legislation and that is a shame. Thus the power of the Assembly to pass primary legislation is still a very necessary power.
  I used the phrase "devolution settlement", which is a phrase frequently employed in the context of the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Parliament. However, as the former Secretary of State for Wales, Mr Ron Davies, once said, devolution is "a process, not an event". Here we are witnessing major constitutional innovation which is taking forward the interests of the people of Wales and Scotland. That is reflected in the gracious Speech that we are considering today.
  A further criticism which could be advanced is that one of the primary purposes of devolution was to cure the "democratic deficit"—a phrase used by the right reverend Prelate—conferred by the quango systems in place in Wales and Scotland. What has not been achieved so far in either of those two countries is a reduction in quangos, the very rationale which brought the new administrations into being in the first place.
  However, I find myself in a most unusual position; namely, to be speaking on behalf of the government of Wales, as I do today, as well as congratulating the Government on bringing forward further measures which will assist us in our joint task in that country.
  5.57 p.m.
  Lord Rawlinson of Ewell: My Lords, I do not propose to follow the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, in speaking on matters of devolution because I have my own idiosyncratic views that I wish to express about a different constitutional matter. However, I should like to follow him in his welcome to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn. I should like to repeat that welcome. The noble and learned Lord will make
  68
  a brilliant Leader of the House. He was a star in my profession, one in which I was involved for over 40 years. In a moment I shall have a little more to say about the role he played before he became the Leader of the House, but I shall say it with the greatest respect to someone with whom I am proud to have been a fellow barrister.
  I should like to talk about the role of the Law Officers of the Crown because I believe that they play an important part in the constitution. Over the past years I believe that their role has gradually been changed and shifted. When I first became a Law Officer, Harold Macmillan said to me, "Remember, you are the last of the Crown officers who remains a Member of the House of Commons". He then moved on to a stimulating but strange discussion on Samuel Pepys. Later in the conversation he said that I should remember the following as regards the responsibilities of a Law Officer: they belong first to the Crown; secondly, to Parliament; and, only thirdly, to the government of whom the officer is a member. It is the principal public function of the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General, who are the parens patriae—the guardians of the public interest—rather than the Government's interest. The Attorney-General is the principal agent for enforcing legal rights and is required to intervene when the public interest—not the government interest—is affected.
  Sir Hartley Shawcross, one of the great Attorney-Generals, said:
  "Although the Attorney-General is a member of the Government, he has certain duties which he cannot abdicate in connection with the administration of the law, especially the criminal law".
  Of course, the Attorney-General is responsible for criminal prosecutions—that is a part of his quasi-judicial, independent role—and the Solicitor-General, to whom my noble friend Lord Renton referred, is his deputy.
  It is also the practice of both Law Officers to represent the Crown in litigation whenever major interests of the state are involved. The Attorney-General prosecutes in criminal cases. Some 30 years ago, I personally prosecuted on all circuits save the Welsh circuit. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, will understand that I did not dare to do that. The Solicitor-General is responsible for the Revenue Paper, for revenue cases. Reggie Hills—a remarkable Treasury devil for revenue—used to school Solicitors-General in revenue practice. Those are the Crown duties, quasi-judicial in nature, that are quite apart from their government duties.
  Their second responsibility is to Parliament. Here we come to the major change that has recently taken place. The Attorney-General is meant to be available to assist the House of Commons and committees. He was invariably a member of the Privileges Committee and would assist the Speaker. I remember having to assist Speaker King on one occasion when there was an incident in public with a gun. It was part of the duties of the Attorney-General to be of assistance to the Speaker. Often Members of Parliament would call for the attendance of the Attorney-General to join in and

  69
  assist debates, but he was expected to speak as a lawyer and not as a politician. Invariably, the Solicitor-General was bound to assist in the passage of finance Acts.
  These independent duties were always disliked by civil servants. They did not like the absence in court of the Law Officers, where they were not available to be consulted by departments or by the Cabinet. The civil servants wanted the Law Officers to be tame, in-house legal advisers. There was a long campaign to remove the Law Officers from the Royal Courts of Justice—where they had had their chambers for years and years—which succeeded in doing so in the late 1980s or early 1990s.
  I sense a general attitude now to follow this course; a different attitude from the old attitude towards the role of the Law Officers. I shall refer to various people for whom I have the highest regard as lawyers. The change began in 1997 when the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, was appointed Solicitor-General, not in the House of Commons but here in the House of Lords. In fact, at that time there was an Attorney-General in the House of Commons. Two years later, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams—to whom I have paid my tribute—was appointed Attorney-General in the House of Lords. That was unique.
  The noble and learned Lord was also the Deputy Leader. I used to sit here sometimes and think how extraordinary it was to see him sitting there on those red Benches and I wondered how he had the time. I know that he has a great capacity and a great facility for work, but I do not know how was he able to handle all the problems of the Attorney-General that he had on his hands and at the same time be the Deputy Leader of the House, but he did.
  The removal of the senior Law Officer from all participation in the House of Commons and its committees was a big change. Maybe it was due—this was referred to by my noble friend Lord Renton—to the change in attitude towards Members of Parliament and the payments and expenses they get now which exclude them from taking part in any other single activity. Therefore there were no, and there are no, leading legal practitioners in the House of Commons. Perhaps there is one, the shadow Attorney-General, Edward Garnier, whom I remember with great respect.
  We have seen lately how easy it is to parachute a desired candidate into a safe seat—I remember Mr Woodward of butler fame—but instead of parachuting a distinguished lawyer into the House of Commons, the Government have parachuted him into the House of Lords. We have had the noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams; we now have the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, another distinguished lawyer. The Government could not be luckier than to have someone so distinguished in that role. The Government got a good bargain but the House of Commons did not.
  When the House of Commons was really alive and active and determined to play a part in controlling the executive— not as it has been over the past two years,
  70
  where it sits tamely and vast numbers of Members are mainly in their rooms looking at television—I very much doubt that it would have permitted the senior Law Officer not to be a Member of the House of Commons.
  There has now been a further change. This year the Government have gone further. They have appointed a Solicitor-General who has no experience of general practice of the law and who was not a QC. She has been made a QC—she was given silk, I am told, at the end of last week—which makes a mockery of the rule that to be a QC you had to have real experience and excellence in legal practice. There is the exception of honorary QCs, but they are honoured for their services to the law. What has this Solicitor-General who has been imposed upon us done? Why has this Law Officer of the Crown, who has all these responsibilities for the public interest, suddenly been imposed upon us by this Government? She is not a barrister; she is not a solicitor with a certificate allowing her to practice advocacy in the High Court. She was a legal officer at the National Council of Civil Liberties and has not practised since she came to the House of Commons in 1982. Her only claim for becoming the Solicitor-General, for becoming a QC, is that she is a former Secretary of State who was dismissed.
  In 1964, Harold Wilson wanted to have Eric Fletcher, who was a solicitor, as the Solicitor-General. But he was dissuaded, and Dingle Foot became Solicitor-General and Eric Fletcher became a Minister without portfolio. How will this Solicitor-General play it? How can she handle the problems? How can she handle the public responsibilities if she has no qualifications or knowledge of the problems which, as the Attorney-General knows, crop up every day in criminal law, common law and international law? How can she possibly play a part in that.?
  The number of appearances in court of the Law Officers has been in steady decline for some years. In 1997–98, the Attorney-General appeared once and the Solicitor-General five times; in 1998–99, the Attorney-General appeared four times and the Solicitor-General five times; in 1999–2000, the Attorney-General appeared once—"the Marchioness inquiry"—and the Solicitor General five times. So there were 21 appearances by the Law Officers. Some 70 per cent of those appearances—15—were made by the Solicitor-General. How will this new Solicitor-General, who does not even have qualifications, play a part? It will lead to more decline in the role of the guardians of the public interest.
  The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor in the year 2000 did not sit at all. I understand why. The noble Lord, Lord Thomas, referred to the European Court problem, with the dual role of a judge and a Minister. Perhaps the judicial role of the Lord Chancellor has ended—I do not know—but it is obviously a problem. I hope that it has not ended and that he will be sitting there. I see the noble and learned Lord nod, and that gives me greater confidence.
  Some people have been calling for a Ministry of Justice. Others, with a better view, want to retain the Lord Chancellor, whose whole position in state

  71
  removes him from jockeying for position in the ministerial stakes. He is important as a link between the executive and the judges.
  This latest move, this shoehorning into an important legal office—as though it is of no importance, as though it does not matter—of this former Secretary of State, who has no proper qualification, and allowing her to step from her previous position to her present one, seems to be something which shows the attitude towards the Law Officers. If it means that we are to move ultimately towards a European-style ministry of justice, I hope that we shall do so by means of open debate and not by stealth.
  Above all, the present appointment of an unqualified Solicitor-General should be changed. She is incapable of fulfilling the public interest duties. It is not fair on her, it not fair as regards the office and it is not fair on the public, whose interest rests in the special capacity of the Law Officers of the Crown.
  6.10 p.m.
  The Earl of Onslow: My Lords,
  "Ave Caesar, morituri te salutant"
  "Hail, Caesar. Those who are about to die salute thee". I am not sure whether the Lord Chancellor is Caligula, Antoninus Pius, Septimius Severus or any other of those great Romans to whom that was reputedly addressed by Suetonius.
  Most of your Lordships will know that I find it amusing, odd and totally incongruous that just because by forebears sucked up to Pitt, Walpole, North and anyone else who was around to be sucked up to at the time, that I should have any possible excuse for bossing people about. I completely accept that our day as hereditary Peers with a right to legislate has gone. I am delighted that my noble friend Lord Renton should fight such a gallant action on my behalf. He suggested that some of us might stand for election. Suddenly, the temptation of being in your Lordships' House on three counts—one by birth and two by election—is overwhelming. I could say to the noble Baroness, Lady Jay: "Not only am I here; but I have been twice elected, and you have not been elected once".
  The noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, said in reply to our debate yesterday:
  "It is necessary in a society and in a constitutional democracy such as we have that no government, no central executive, should be without effective reasoned challenge. That is part of the duty of this House". —[Official Report, 20/6/01; col. 22.]
  That is a terrific advance. I hope that we can get that message through, and that when I go I shall leave behind me a House that is stronger against the executive and more representative of the general public in the way that it has been pointed out to be. I love the idea put forward by my noble friend Lord Renton of a "classless nobility". It is a splendid concept. It should be the motto of the new House.
  72
  Perhaps I may refer to one or two minor points in the Lord Chancellor's opening remarks. Chou En-Lai, when asked what effect he thought the French Revolution had had, said that it was too early to say. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg is convinced that all the constitutional changes produced by this Government in the past two and a half years have been perfect and offer the best of all possible worlds.
  I found it marginally amusing during the election campaign that Mr Kennedy went around talking about English health and education when he was standing for a Scottish seat and had absolutely no right to talk about such matters, even in Scotland. Frankly, education and health in Surrey have nothing to with the Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness West. They are delegated matters. These points have not yet been examined. So I do not believe that the constitutional settlement is nearly as happy as the noble and learned Lord says it is. As for his and the Liberals' idea of reinventing the Heptarchy and undoing the work of Alfred the Great, are we sure it is a good idea to invent regional assemblies—Mercia, Northumbria, Egbert of Kent, Offa and his dyke? Let us be just a little careful before we do some of these things.
  I make these observations in the same way as I make observations on proportional representation. That is designed so that the Liberals and a small number of other people can boss us about. The glorious thing about our present system is that one moment the Prime Minister is rushing about in a large car with people bowing and scraping, the next he is on the Underground on his way to a cricket match. We can sack our government; and we must always be able to do so. If we go down the road of proportional representation, we shall not be able to sack the government. The Dutch and the Belgians have not sacked a government since the war. The Germans have done so only once. We must be very careful. The ultimate power of the people is to say, "On your bike!". It is essential. Proportional representation will put an end to that. Whether it is us on our bikes or noble Lords opposite on their bikes, one day that is what will happen. That is the right way to do it. Then we scramble back on our bikes, or even the Liberals scramble back on theirs—my noble friends are saying "No"!
  I now turn to the important remarks made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, about the reform of this Chamber. It is essential. The noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, was right to say that we now have a major opportunity. I cannot get over how encouraged I was by what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams, said yesterday. But some difficult points need to be examined. There will need to be a ceiling on the number of those elected. Let us assume that there are three elections over 10 years and that there is no ceiling. We win next time: up goes the number of Tories. The Liberals win the time after that: whee, up go the Liberals! Then in come Labour, and they have an enormous amount of scrabbling to do to pick up on the figures. This does not sound to me a

  73
  very sensible approach. Equally, if we have a list system and proportional representation, it will simply be a case of party hacks on a list, and that is a bad idea.
  So how are the elections to be held? How are we to hold elections for independents, for those who have no party affiliation? All these points require thought. I suggest that there must also be a fixed tenure and possibly even an age limit. Then, my noble friend—I mean that in all possible senses—Lord Renton proves the whole thing wrong. He has been here longer than God, is nearly as old as God and contributes almost as much as God. I do not want to argue from the particular to the general, but these are real problems.
  I shall support full-heartedly any real prospect of real change to make this a real, balanced Whig Parliament. If the measure to change this House is merely a "faff-about" Bill which does nothing much to change it and just shoots through, out will come my bovver boots again, out will come my razor, and back on will go my hooligan kit. I want this house to be much better when I am not in it.
  Noble Lords: Oh!
  The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, I accept that that will be easy! But I genuinely want it to be much better when I am not in it. I shall do everything that I can to make sure that that is the case. I might even try to get back in in a third incarnation.
  6.20 p.m.
  Lord Morgan: My Lords, I hope that noble Lords will forgive me if I begin my speech less entertainingly than was the case with the speech from the noble Earl that we have just heard. I declare an interest as a member of the Select Committee on the Constitution chaired by my friend and academic colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Norton. The remit, in part, of that committee is to comment on the constitutional implications of measures that come before this House. Therefore, perhaps I may comment briefly on the constitutional implications of the general election.
  The general election was generally perceived to be marked by apathy and cynicism. Yet, set alongside that, was the equally conventional view that politicians focused not on arid matters like how we are governed but on the issues that really, deeply and truly interested the voters. In effect, that encouraged only 59 per cent of the voters actually to make it to the polling stations—so that piece of conventional wisdom could be reviewed.
  The election was noticeable for what was not discussed. One of the big voids was constitutional matters. Indeed, there was very little discussion even about the implications of our relationship with Europe. It is true that Mr William Hague had something to say about Europe, especially in the context of saving the pound. However, he was generally rebuked by journalists and, indeed, by many members of his own party for raising the matter of Europe because it was very well known by
  74
  everyone—journalists and everyone else—that the voters had no interest in Europe: they were interested in other matters.
  I welcome the fact that we are discussing the constitution. As my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor observed, it has been a very striking and radical part—and, in general, a very successful one—of this Government's programme. Much reform is still needed, including, as we heard from the Liberal Democrat Benches, the reform of this House. In the past few years we have seen a radical transformation of Parliament as regards its relationship with the process of devolution in Scotland and Wales; its relationship with Europe; and especially as regards the relationship of Parliament with the courts under the human rights legislation. These are momentous changes. They have made the United Kingdom look and feel very different as a structure. They are centrally relevant for the public agenda. They most certainly should be discussed at a general election, and also by the Labour Party. In passing, I observe that I am the only speaker participating from these Benches, and that may, or may not, be indicative of something.
  One of the conclusions one could draw from the general election is that the danger of fragmentation of the United Kingdom following the process of devolution seems—at least for the moment—to be much exaggerated. The effect on the United Kingdom of the general election was, broadly, to make it more united. The nationalist parties, the Scottish Nationalists and Plaid Cymru, actually fell back. They polled only nine seats between them. Admittedly, that is eight more than the Conservatives, but it is still not a very large total. I believe that that suggests that devolution has actually reinforced the union, as happened, for example, in Spain as regards Catalonia. As my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor observed, it deals with celebrating the diversity within these polycultural islands but leaves the United Kingdom intact. We heard earlier about fool and mouth disease. No one said that the handling of the crisis had been impaired by devolution. On the contrary, there was very considerable integration between England, Scotland and Wales in the process.
  The implications of devolution have still to be explored. The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, made a most interesting speech. He rightly praised the way in which devolution had begun. We still have to go further—do we not? —in this famous process, especially, as the noble Lord observed, over primary legislation and the standing of the Welsh National Assembly in taking the initiative as regards pushing forward such legislation. Frankly, I believe that Welsh devolution will remain an incomplete process until the Welsh Assembly has significantly greater powers.
  I believe that devolution for Scotland has not really be taken fully on board. I was in Edinburgh during some of the general election campaign. I t was very striking to people there that politicians from London were saying how health, education and the social services were central issues. In fact, they were irrelevant to the campaign in Edinburgh because such matters are all devolved to the Scottish

  75
  Parliament. We are still in a learning process: we still have Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Wales. However important and significant the changes of devolution may have been, there is still a feeling that, in some sense, it is still business as usual.
  Another important and central aspect is the effect of the general election on England. The latter had a different kind of election: the English nation remained constitutionally a void. In another place, Dr Tony Wright referred to England and its regions as,
  "the silent and uninvited guests at the devolutionary feast".
  It is important for us to look at England and see how the process of apathy and disenchantment, which the voters feel—the feeling that Parliament is remote and does not extend to their local and particular concerns—extends to the great nation of England. To coin a phrase from a famous poem, the people of England have not "spoken yet".
  The Labour Party's manifesto contained a very strong statement about ascertaining the popular will about regional government. The noble Earl made some very interesting historical observations, though not wholly accurate, on the heptarchy and very early medieval times. We also had a most powerful and inspiring statement from my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor. However, as things stand, we have regional experiments by way of the RDAs, and so on, which are appointive and undemocratic. They are part of the quango regime about which other noble Lords have spoken. We still await, perhaps hopefully, the fruition of the speeches made prior to the election. I have in mind particularly the speech of Mr Gordon Brown, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, given in Manchester on 29th January which, if the words meant anything at all, suggested that there would be a much stronger regional presence in England and that it would be democratic. Mr Prescott observed during the campaign that those regional assemblies,
  "should be about democracy and not about bureaucracy".
  We very much hope that this will be carried forward. There have been many tests of local opinion, especially in the North East. There was a very striking vote in the famous constituency of Sedgefield which showed that 70 per cent of the voters there wanted some form of regional assembly in the area planning its development.
  I believe that the Government have been somewhat torn between devolution and dirigisme: it is both centralist and anti-centralist at one and the same time. It is difficult to strike the balance, but it is very noticeable. We have seen examples—have we not?—in Wales, where those two pressures are in conflict. I feel that this change is necessary on both sides of the House, as it were. It is not perhaps for me to preach to the Conservative Party, but I cannot understand why it has maintained a hard-line, centralist unionist stance when it is manifestly to its disadvantage in so many ways. It has been unhelpful to the party's cause in Scotland and in Wales. The Scottish Conservatives are clearly very unhappy with the situation. The Conservative approach from the Primrose League to
  76
  Stanley Baldwin and then to John Major has been to celebrate the politics of place, region and identity. In a sense, I hope that the Conservatives will not make the same error in relation to English localism that they have made in relation to national feeling in Wales, and especially in Scotland.
  Finally, I hope that the Labour Party will also feel that it can happily embrace asymmetrical regionalism, as it has embraced asymmetrical devolution. I do not intend to talk about the reform of the House of Lords, but it would seem to me to be a valuable possible component of the reform of the composition of this House if there was some element of regional representation in this House. If that were the case, the composition of this House would have a measure of rationality that I must confess somewhat escapes me at the present time.
  Distinguished scholars have put forward two views of the Labour Party and its attitude towards constitutional reform and they are both wrong. They say, first, that constitutional reform is not a Labour policy but a Liberal policy. In fact, all parties, including very much the Conservatives, have played their part in this. If one wants a classic statement of the need for and the implications of constitutional reform, one can look at Aneurin Bevan's famous book, In Place of Fear, which has a famous chapter at the beginning on precisely that.
  The other mistake, I believe, is to regard devolution and regionalism as marking the death-knell for nationwide democratic socialism. As a democratic socialist myself—that is perhaps a minority creed in this House, or perhaps even in the Labour Party these days—I feel that it is a great mistake to equate socialism with centralisation. Briefly in the years after the war there was a view that "the gentleman from Whitehall knows best". That has not been the essential thrust of the Labour Party throughout its history generally from the Fabianism of the 1880s to the devolutionism of the 1980s.
  British-style socialism has in the main not been about centralisation. As R H Tawney famously said, it has been concerned with the dispersal of power. It is antithetical to the concentration of power and it has been concerned with greater equality. Other constitutional arrangements have not produced greater equality. The per capita wealth and the rate of economic growth in different regions of the country vary enormously. In the three most northerly regions of Britain, as defined under the RDAs, there is an enormous disparity compared with the South East. Therefore, it seems to me that, if one is interested at all in good government, or perhaps particularly democratic socialism, democratic regionalism is a key to it and a key to social inclusion.
  Constitutional reform is important. It is important for the development of this country. It is not just a hobby for academics in the hothouse atmosphere of their seminars. It is concerned with mobilising power and with making Britain a more just and democratic society. Constitutional reform figures to a very

  77
  marginal extent in the Queen's Speech, but I hope that it will feature prominently in the lifetime of this Parliament.
  6.33 p.m.
  Lord Norton of Louth: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for his opening reference to the Constitution Committee which I chair and of which the noble Lord, Lord Morgan, is a distinguished member. The committee naturally has yet to be appointed for this Parliament and I speak in a personal capacity, as will be abundantly clear from what I say.
  The title of today's debate is important. We have to look at reform of your Lordships' House within the context of the constitution as a constitution. It cannot be treated as some self-contained issue, to be discussed independently of one's particular view of the constitution and how the different parts of the constitution relate to one another.
  I have no doubt that the Government believe that in the previous Parliament they brought about a new constitutional settlement for the United Kingdom and that the rationale for that settlement is clear. The proposals for this Parliament are doubtless viewed as completing that settlement. That was apparent from the comments of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. The constitution is far from settled and the rationale for what the Government have done to the constitution far from clear.
  In the previous Parliament the Government introduced measures of constitutional change that were disparate in range and viewed by the Government essentially as discrete measures of reform. There was no attempt to look at how the several measures related to one another. There was no attempt to enunciate a coherent intellectual approach to constitutional change. I challenged Ministers to do so and they failed to meet that challenge.
  At no point did the Government explain where they were coming from, or where they thought they were going to, in terms of their understanding of the constitution. I think that even at this late stage we are entitled to ask the Government for such an explanation. If we are to make sense of what the Government propose for the second Chamber, then we have a right to ask how those proposals fit with the Government's view of the constitution.
  I therefore have a number of questions that I wish to put to the Government. They can be grouped under two headings. The first is that of the Government's view of the constitution and of constitutional change. The second is that of their specific proposals for reform of the upper House. Like other noble Lords, I am delighted to see the noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams, in his place as Leader of the House and I shall look forward to his replies to each question.
  Taking first the constitution qua constitution, what is the Government's view of what the constitution is for? I do not mean what is their definition of a constitution. There are various definitions to be found in works on the constitution. Rather, what purpose do the
  78
  Government think is served by a constitution? One view of a constitution is that it provides the structured means for the will of the people to be paramount. This view has been characterised as positive constitutionalism. Another view is that it provides the structured means for embodying values that are beyond the transient will of the people and as such is a form of constraint, This is termed negative constitutionalism.
  Both views are relevant to debate about the British constitution. Positive constitutionalism is embraced in the United Kingdom by the socialist approach to the constitution. It is also largely embraced by those who adhere to the traditional, or Westminster, approach to the constitution. Under the traditional approach, the will of the people is tempered through Parliament, but the approach facilitates the will of the people determining policy outcomes. Dicey, let us not forget, ascribed legal sovereignty to Parliament, not popular sovereignty; that rests with the people. Negative constitutionalism is embraced by adherents to the liberal approach to constitutional change. The constitution is seen very much as a document for constraining public authority.
  What is the Government's view as to the purpose of a constitution? The answer is necessary in order to understand their approach to Parliament and to the role of the second Chamber. The justification for the role and powers of the second Chamber differs substantially depending on one's view of what the constitution is for. I have made the point in your Lordships' House before that I take one view. Adherents to the liberal approach, sat on the Liberal Democrat Benches, take another. I disagree fundamentally with their approach but it is intellectually coherent and I can engage in debate with them because I know where they are coming from. I have no idea where the Government are coming from. I should like the Minister to tell us.
  We also need to know where the Government think they are going. Knowing how they view the purpose of the constitution is a starting point. But we also need to know what form of constitution they are seeking to create. My second question, then, is what do the Government believe the constitution will look like in five or 10 years' time? I am not inviting a description of the different parts of our constitutional arrangements but rather asking the Government to explain, in conceptual terms, how they see the constitution developing. What exactly have they been working towards in terms of the British constitution? They have moved away from the traditional Westminster model, but not wholly discarded it. They have made some changes advocated by the liberal approach, but not embraced wholly the liberal reform agenda. Please, therefore, could the Minister tell us where the Government are coming from and where they think they are going in terms of the constitution and constitutional change?
  I turn now to the specific proposals for reform of the upper House. Perhaps not surprisingly, given what I have said, I do not see how they fit into any particular view of the constitution. They are neither fish nor fowl in terms of approaches to constitutional change.

  79
  I do not intend to dwell on my justification for the House as presently constituted. Your Lordships' House adds value to the political system. It fulfils functions that are qualitatively distinctive. They are functions that the first Chamber cannot or chooses not to fulfil. The work of your Lordships' House has become more important as the other place has been increasingly constrained in its ability to hold government to account. This House fulfils tasks that are complementary to the first Chamber and, as such, it facilitates the accountability that is at the heart of our Westminster system of government. I do not believe that the alternatives on offer could add value in the way that the existing House does.
  My starting point is that we must therefore subject to critical scrutiny any proposal that deviates from what presently exists. The Government's proposals—based on the recommendations of the Wakeham Commission—are not particularly radical, but they do deviate from what presently exists. Let me look at the Government's proposals and their justification for those proposals. The Labour Party's election manifesto says:
  "We are committed to completing House of Lords reform, including removal of the remaining hereditary peers, to make it more representative and democratic, while maintaining the House of Commons' traditional primacy".
  Could the Leader of the House tell us in what way removing the remaining hereditary Peers will of itself make the House democratic? How will it make the House more representative, given that no peer, not even a bishop, sits in a representative capacity? This is not a semantic point. Rather, what it suggests is that the subject has not been thought through thoroughly.
  Following the Royal Commission's report, the Government favour a House that is partly elected. Why? Is not a partly elected House a recipe for instability? Some argue, as does the Royal Commission, that it will add legitimacy to the House. But if legitimacy derives from election, then that legitimacy will attach to the elected Members. Are then non-elected Members deemed to be illegitimate? If not—if life peers are legitimate, and we must presume that the fact that they are to remain implies that they are so regarded—then why do we need some elected Members? Could the Leader of House explain how life peers are at the same time both legitimate and yet not legitimate, which seems to be the conclusion to be drawn from the Government's proposals?
  And how will the election of some Members make for a more democratic political system? If one defines democracy in terms of enabling the will of the people to be paramount, then the more Members of this House who are elected the greater the potential to challenge the elected first Chamber and thus undermine the accountability of that Chamber. The Government recognise that the primacy of the first Chamber must be preserved in order to maintain that accountability. That is why only a small proportion of Members of the second Chamber are to be elected. The very reason why that primacy is to be maintained also undermines the case for any elections to the second
  80
  Chamber. Electing some Members to this House does not, on the definition of democracy I have advanced (and which appears to be a definition accepted by Government), make the House democratic. Our present arrangements are, on this definition, the most appropriate for ensuring that the popular will is translated into legislative output. What the Government propose adds nothing to that.
  At a more practical level, perhaps I may invite the Leader of the House to speculate on what the turnout in elections for Members of this House is likely to be. I invite him to answer bearing in mind three things: first, that the more elections are held, the less interested people appear to be in turning out to vote; secondly, that in voting in elections to this House, electors will not be choosing the government; and, thirdly, that this House has less power than the European Parliament. I am not clear as to what the incentive will be for citizens to vote for Members of this House. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord will tell us.
  The Royal Commission said that the second Chamber should be,
  "broadly representative of society as a whole".
  The terminology is important. Elections are not always very good ways of producing Members who are representative of society: that is, in terms of being socially typical. Appointment is a far more effective means than popular election of ensuring that Members are drawn from a range of backgrounds. I am not suggesting that this House is socially typical but it is open to having a much more socially representative membership than is the other place. My question to the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House is thus a simple one: how will election, partial or otherwise, deliver a House that is broadly representative of society as a whole?
  My final question is this. Will the noble and learned Lord tell us precisely in what way the second Chamber, as intended in the Government's proposals, will add value to the political process over and above that added by the present House? I invite him to answer that question only after he has answered my preceding questions. If he accepts, and I cannot see how logically he can do otherwise, that the proposals will not create a democratic or representative body, then what exactly is the point of what the Government propose?
  I believe that I can make a powerful case for the House as it presently exists. However, the onus is not on me to do so. The onus is on the Government to justify their proposals for change and to do so within a clear vision of the constitution and of constitutional change. They have not made a case. I invite the Leader of the House to rectify that omission.
  6.46 p.m.
  The Lord Bishop of Bristol: My Lords, I am sad that the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, is not in his place. When he hoped that he would leave a better—and I think that he meant more effective—House, we all knew exactly what he meant. I echo his sentiments.

  81
  My noble friend the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth spoke about the Church of England's response to the Wakeham report and the reform of your Lordships' House. I was delighted to hear many voices speaking about the role of this House and how we carry out that role. I hope that in the consultations we have been promised we shall consider the way in which your Lordships' House expects the Bishops to offer effective parliamentary service. First, if we as a body are reduced in number, will our breadth of skills be sufficient to provide your Lordships' House with the service expected from us? Secondly, if our numbers are reduced in the way suggested, there will be a conflict of interest between a Bishop's responsibility for his diocese and his responsibility to play a full and active role in this House. We may have to be more radical than considering the number of Bishops. We may have to consider the way in which leaders of other Christian Churches and world faiths might collectively, with the right back-up, provide that important service to your Lordships' House.
  The noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, enthralled us yesterday with the possibility of a limerick—it was completed towards the end of the day. However, the noble Baroness introduced us to the concept of "six little words". The gracious Speech states:
  "My Government maintain their commitment to devolution in Scotland and Wales".
  Where are those five little words, "and in the English regions"? The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, and others have pointed that there is a real issue here. In his opening speech, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor described how devolution in the English regions was taking place with RDAs, and so on. It sounded very positive. But on 21st March this year my noble friend the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham initiated a debate in your Lordships' House on the English regions. His opening speech was a prophetic speech in both senses of the word. He referred to the disillusionment of the English people with the present system of government, saying:
  "Large numbers of absentees will indicate a serious state of affairs in our democracy".—[Official Report, 21/3/01; col. 1428.]
  Noble Lords have already referred to what happened in the recent general election. It was a prophetic speech indeed in terms of foretelling the future.
  My noble friend went on to speak in a prophetic way in a different sense. He said that the English regions required regionally rooted government. That sentiment was echoed by John Prescott when he said:
  "We remain committed to moving to directly elected regional government".
  Mr Prescott reiterated that commitment on 30th May, in the run-up to the election, committing the party to publishing its blueprint for regional government if it won a second term. Labour has won a second term, but there is no reference to the proposals in the gracious Speech. A number of other statements were made on the subject in the run-up to the election. I suspect that we all agree that bringing decision-making closer to people is vital for the revitalisation of democracy.
  82
  Lastly, we acknowledge that Whitehall does not always know best. I shall put that above my desk on certain occasions. The regional development agencies are doing a marvellous amount of work. That is certainly the case in the South West. Those in the North East and the North West would also affirm that. However, being tied to national programmes leaves them unable to develop appropriate regional strategies. We heard a Statement about foot and mouth disease this afternoon. The issue was rightly linked to tourism and the industries that are found in our rural communities. The regions of England are not the same. What happens in the North East of England is not always appropriate in the South West of England. There is a need for a locally rooted elected assembly that can reflect the aspirations of the people of the region and the strategies that will make it a more effective place.
  Some may ask why Bishops are interested in regional democracy. In part, it is because a number of us are involved in it and believe that it is profoundly important for our society. That interest also stems from what we believe about the dignity and worth of human beings. The Church of England claims to be catholic and reformed. Sometimes we forget our reformation basis. I remind your Lordships' House of that great reformer Martin Luther, who worked in partnership with the city fathers of Wittenberg. He suggested that the community needed to create a community chest—a gathering together of money that could be disbursed in three ways.
  First, Martin Luther suggested that money should be given to unemployed men so that they might buy tools that would allow them to engage in positive activity. He added the marvellous proposal that if they were unable to repay the loan, they should be forgiven for God's—and nobody else's—sake. The idea was about enabling people to participate and make their contribution.
  Secondly, the money should be used to provide schooling for the children of the poor, because education provides men and women with the possibility of earning their livelihood and making a contribution to the community. It gives people dignity and worth. I applaud the comments in the gracious Speech about issues relating to education. However, they might be better addressed at a regional rather than a national level. That is at least a possibility.
  Thirdly—although this may not be politically correct—Martin Luther suggested that money should be given as dowries to the daughters of the poor so that they might get married and then be able to bring up their own families and create good households.
  We need to enable all our citizens to participate in and contribute to the life of our society. At the moment, many of them feel that they are distanced and alienated from it. If we truly want to create a society that takes each individual seriously, we need to keep three issues in mind. First, it must be a just society. I was delighted to hear in the gracious Speech that the Government want to ensure that we move towards that. Secondly, it should be a sustainable society. We

  83
  have heard something about issues relating to pollution, the environment and the way in which we use the world in which we live. However, it is the third strand that really matters—participation. The further away government is from the ordinary lives of men and women, the more difficult it is for people to participate. We need a commitment to devolution in the English regions. I shall be delighted when Wessex takes its rightful place again in political terminology.
  I add my congratulations to those that many others have offered to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn. I hope that he will tell us whether the omission in the gracious Speech was just an oversight and that we might be given some picture of what is contemplated and how such plans might work out in the future. In response to the debate on 21st March, the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, said that a Green Paper on the subject was not far off and that there would certainly be referendums in each of the regions. Neither of those issues is alluded to in the gracious Speech. Because I believe that the issue is important, I should like to hear the response of the Leader of the House.
  6.57 p.m.
  Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, I join those who have welcomed the noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, to his august new position. We are very proud of him in Wales, as he knows.
  We are faced once again with the prospect of constitutional change—or "modernisation", as new Labour prefers to call it—and it looks as if it is going to rumble on throughout the better part of this Parliament. I do not object to change, as long as it is for the better and patently improves the working and quality of our democratic process and the government of this country. Any measures to that end must be demonstrably and convincingly beneficial. To achieve that status and public confidence, they must be keenly inspired by sound principles and untainted by mean motives. I hope that proper cross-party consultation will ensure that with regard to the reform of this House.
  I shall approach the debate on a rather different tack. It is well known that the Government are impatient of the delays between the announcement of their proposals and their delivery to the public. That impatience was frequently expressed during the recent election campaign by no less a person that the Prime Minister, who reminded me of Hamlet's plaintive soliloquy about,
  "enterprises of great pith and moment",
  whose
  "currents turn awry and lose the name of action".
  Following the election, it is not surprising that the Government are anxious to sharpen focus on the public services and to speed up improvement in every way possible. They will brook no delay, legislative or otherwise, to the implementation of their policies. The will of the people, as represented by the Government, must be executed forthwith. That is their post-election
  84
  theme, which permeates the Queen's Speech, as it permeated the Prime Minister's remarks in the other place yesterday.
  Some of us challenge the Government's analysis and argue that the dilatory delivery of their objectives arises from Ministers' excessive preoccupation with presentation. It is obviously not enough to say that they are doing something; it must actually be done and Ministers should be the driving force behind that activity. It cannot be left to civil servants to dictate the pace of policy implementation. If it is left to them, one ends up, as any former Minister knows, with a very different scenario from the one originally envisaged—sometimes distinctly better, often disastrously worse, and always infinitely more elaborate.
  Presentation is a very demanding business. It devours ministerial time and energy, and it is not surprising that Ministers prefer to broadcast their announcements directly on air and by leaks to the press rather than, or before, making an exhaustive and often exhausting Statement to the House of Commons, where they can be subjected to awkward questions. After all the talking, it is not surprising either that Ministers have little time or inclination for the follow-through. They are interested only in the results on the ground and, again, in making their presentation to the public in the best possible light. However, there are many instances where such trust has been woefully misplaced and things which should have been done have been left undone.
  Having served in government for some 15 years, I find myself in empathy, if not in sympathy, with the Government's viewpoint. I understand the desire for speedier implementation of policy. As I have already suggested, and as I believe the Government have appreciated for themselves, many of the dilatory factors of which they have complained lie within government itself, and so do the remedies.
  The recent extensive changes in government departments and their responsibilities, and the strengthening of the Cabinet Office, are indicative of the Government's perception of some of the inherent fault lines and weaknesses in the administration. We all hope that the changes and new appointments will improve the delivery of policy objectives and, thus, the government of the country.
  In turning to the legislative process, I wish to make a key point gleaned, again, from my personal experience of government and of both Houses of Parliament. It is this. One of the greatest values of your Lordships' House to any government is that it gives them vital time to improve legislation. We talk a great deal about our scrutinising role but, from the Government's viewpoint, that is synonymous with an extension of time.
  Time is the great healer of poor legislation and this House has been the hospital for many sickly Bills requiring treatment. Time in your Lordships' House is of the essence of sound legislation. Time is necessary for the Government to digest their second thoughts and to correct the defects seen during a Bill's passage through another place. There must be time for

  85
  Ministers to accommodate promises and concessions made to pressure groups and organisations. There must be time, too, for Ministers, their civil servants and draftsmen to think through, rework and restate abstruse sections in legislation. In short, there must be time to perfect the imperfect as far as possible. Your Lordships' House provides time.
  Of the thousands of amendments and new clauses passed in this place, the vast majority are put forward by the Government. All are made possible only with the benefit of time. They cannot be rushed through with impunity. Without the time afforded to legislation by our procedures in this place, our legislation would be much poorer. The price that the Government pay for that—in dealing with opposition amendments and occasional defeats in the Division Lobby—is negligible by comparison with the intrinsic clarity, acceptability and generally high quality of legislation ultimately achieved.
  Can time be saved in the process without loss of benefit? I shall say only that the other place, with its guillotine and concertina voting procedures, has not improved noticeably the quality of Bills coming to your Lordships' House—indeed, quite the opposite. Bills have come before us containing large tracts that have not been discussed at all in the other place. Therefore, I advise the Government to beware the dangers of curtailing procedures in order to gain time and ease the passage of Bills. Some things, quite properly, take time, and good legislation is one of them. Failure to observe that requirement will eventually redound to the Government's discredit with the electorate.
  So, too, will failure on the part of government to be clearly accountable to Parliament. Parliament should be the working conscience of the nation between elections—the guardian of its best interests. No focus group or forum can be a proper, transparent and effective substitute free from the taint of possible manipulation. The Government should welcome the need for accountability and cultivate the usefulness of Parliament as a sounding board for their proposals and their progress.
  The Government should certainly not be disrespectful of Parliament or regard it as a millstone to be hammered, chiselled and chipped away at as much as possible. That way lies trouble, even though the Government have an overwhelming and, so far, comparatively docile majority in the other place. There could be more testing times ahead.
  With regard to the future composition of your Lordships' House, a consensus appears to be developing in favour of the inclusion of an elected element. There are indications that that elected element may replace the remaining hereditary Peers. Such a substitution would immediately bring into question the legitimacy of the life Peers, as my noble friends Lord Strathclyde and Lord Norton of Louth implied. It could, of course, lead to a predominantly, if not entirely, elected second Chamber which may come to rival the other place. Again, those points only emphasise the importance of all-party consultation on the next steps forward.
  86
  We shall lose much if we lose the hereditary Peers—the independent spirit that they represent, normally with their traditional grace and distinctive charm; their freely given industry in this place; and their youthfulness—a rare commodity, alas, in your Lordships' House and one that worries me increasingly as my white hairs multiply.
  What will come in their place? There will be an infusion of new blood, inexperienced in the ways of this place, although they will soon familiarise themselves. They will dilute our mellow maturity. They will have to be salaried. They will be different from the rest of us. But at least let us hope that they will be people of quality—democrats rather than demagogues.
  7.8 p.m.
  The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, as a hereditary Peer, I have a particular interest in the proceedings this afternoon. Shortly before the general election, in the other place a measure was nodded through which will increase the number of young people in young offender institutions by 2,000 per annum. In Committee in the other place the matter received barely five minutes of light-hearted discussion. In your Lordships' House the measure received half-an-hour of thorough debate, despite the late hour—it was past 10.30 p.m.—and the great pressure of business before dissolution. It was debated by, among several other Members of your Lordships' House, two highly experienced lawyers. The House's expertise was brought to bear on this very important matter.
  If the Bill had not been accelerated through its final stages the following day, the Government would have faced serious further challenges on the clause in question. Whatever one may think of young criminals and their activities, such a measure demands the careful attention that it would normally currently receive in your Lordships' House.
  Three features of the House render it particularly suitable for the detailed scrutiny of legislation; so wrote the noble Lord, Professor Lord Norton of Louth, in his contribution to the textbook Politics UK in 1991. As an unelected House, this House cannot claim the legitimacy to reject the principle of measures that are agreed by the elected House. Thus, basically by default, it focuses on the detail rather than the principle.
  Many fear the danger that in our excitement at empowering ourselves further we may overlook our primary task of detailed scrutiny. A more powerful or a more legitimate House that was more often locked in combat with the House of Commons would have less time to deal with the nitty-gritty of legislation. While it may be necessary to introduce an elected element into our composition in order to prevent further damaging and unproductive change, we need to look at the proposal very carefully. We may become more partisan. Would we wish, for instance, for model speeches to be circulated among the Back Benchers, as was the case yesterday—this was highlighted by the Leader of the Opposition—in the other place? Will the

  87
  noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, explain how he will protect and promote the role of detailed and thorough scrutiny in a more legitimate House?
  To conclude, I wish the Leader of the House every success in the mission to communicate the value of your Lordships' House, which he enunciated for himself yesterday. Surely we must all hope that he ensures that the potential and future value of the House, and its current and past value, are fully understood and recognised. Without a general recognition of the contribution that we make and an appreciation of the benefit of our work, we may fail the public and, more particularly, the most vulnerable in society; namely, those who most depend on well-considered, sensitive legislation.
  An unvalued House, no matter how valuable, is prey to every ignorant populist with strong prejudices. I warmly welcome the seventh principle of parliamentary reform, which was laid out by the Hansard Society on Tuesday; namely, that Parliament must better communicate its value to the public.
  7.14 p.m.
  Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I fear that I must confirm what may be some of your Lordships' worst fears and speak about our relationship with the European Union. I know that EU matters usually feature in our debates on foreign and economic affairs, but I submit to your Lordships that our relationship with the EU is developing in such a way that it now assumes the highest constitutional importance. Many people feel that far too much of our sovereignty has already been ceded to Brussels. However, if the Eurocrats' agenda for the next intergovernmental conference in 2004 succeeds, the United Kingdom will cease to be a self-governing nation; its people will finally lose the right to elect and dismiss those who make its laws.
  I submit that there is no greater constitutional prospect than that, and we should start debating it openly and seriously. Up until now, I have to say that the Government have resolutely refused to do so and I can but hope that some change in that attitude will be heralded tonight in the reply of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, whom we all welcome with affection and respect to his post as Leader of the House.
  There was an encouraging sign that the Government are preparing for wider debate about our relationship with the EU in the Chancellor of the Exchequer's speech last night at the Mansion House. He said:
  "across Europe a debate on the future of Europe is also taking place and Britain must be at the centre of that debate".
  He also said:
  "I believe that those who seek to renegotiate the very basis of our membership with Europe … put at risk the stability that is so central to modern business and investment decisions. And I believe that government and business must join together in putting the case unequivocally for Britain being in Europe—a stronger Britain on the basis of a strong and secure relationship with Europe.
  88
  As the great debate on Europe's future begins, we should not only put the case for Europe but for a reformed Europe—and for Britain leading reform in Europe".
  I suppose that we can take that as the Government's latest position.
  Your Lordships will agree that there is an assumption running through those remarks that being in the EU is a good thing. That is a widely held assumption, which is shared by all three of our main political parties and all our political media. So the task of challenging it is not easy, even if it appears from consistent opinion polls that a large number of the British people do not share it and indeed want to leave the EU altogether. The latest such poll, which was conducted during the general election campaign, showed that some 52 per cent favoured withdrawal. The figure of more than 40 per cent has been thrown up regularly since 1987. I know that those are only opinion polls but the results are important because we have been told by all of our political leaders and all of our political media for 29 years that membership of the EU is vital to the national interest.
  In any case, outside the goldfish bowl of Westminster, it is not only in opinion polls that there is growing dissatisfaction with the European project. Our Federation of Small Businesses, at its annual branch convention on 24th March this year, voted overwhelmingly to leave the EU. The FSB is by far our largest organisation for our vital small businesses, with 165,000 members—yet not a word of that event appeared in our national media.
  We have also had the recent Danish rejection of European economic and monetary union and the Irish rejection of the Treaty of Nice. It seems that when real people are consulted about further entanglement with the octopus in Brussels, which happens very rarely, they take the chance to say that they do not much like it.
  The Irish Attorney-General, Mr Michael McDowell, put it rather well in Brussels on Tuesday when he said that Irish voters had rejected the Nice Treaty party because of a,
  "widespread perception that developments in Europe were taking a turn, or moving in a direction, that caused deep unease".
  He said:
  "a narrow class of activist office-holders, elected and unelected",
  were charging ahead of public opinion with proposals for a European constitution, a justiciable Bill of rights, EU direct taxation, a defence arm, judicial machinery to prosecute and punish citizens, an elected EU president, and an EU government. He continued:
  "Few if any of these proposals carry popular significant support. While many have been put forward separately, they constitute, in the round, the indiciae of a European state in substance".
  That is some of the agenda to which I referred in my opening remarks. I have no doubt that millions of British people would agree with Mr McDowell.
  Yet the belief persists among our political class that our membership of the EU is a good thing. That was demonstrated most recently by the Chancellor last night. That belief seems to be based on two

  89
  fundamental assumptions, both of which are highly questionable and even dangerous. The most important assumption is that the EU is good for peace, and the second is that it is good for trade and prosperity. I have wearied your Lordships before as to why the EU may not be good for peace. History teaches us that on the whole democracies do not provoke war. History also teaches us that forced or premature conglomerations of different nations nearly always end in disaster of one kind or another. We only have to look at the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, Ireland, the Middle East, the trans-Caucasus and much of Africa to see how regularly the dark forces of human nature are unleashed when nations are welded together by politics instead of growing slowly together through genuine common interest.
  So we Euro-realists say that if the democracies of Europe can retain their identity and trade freely together under NATO, they are much less likely to end in conflict with one another than if they are deceived into becoming merely the subservient regions of an undemocratic EU megastate.
  On a more specific level, we say that NATO has been the prime guarantor of peace in Europe and elsewhere since the last war and we deplore the EU's obvious attempt to undermine NATO by setting up a competing military structure. I imagine that other noble Lords will be dealing with this very worrying development during our later debates on the gracious Speech, so I shall say no more about it now.
  The second assumption which I believe is mistaken and which underpins support for our membership of the European Union is that it is good for trade and that leaving it would cost jobs. The Chancellor fell for this one last night when he said that half our total trade is with the EU, with 3 million jobs affected—note that word, my Lords. But the Chancellor was not nearly as misleading as the Prime Minister has been, who never tired of claiming, during the election campaign, that over half our trade and 3.5 million jobs depend on our membership of the European Union.
  When one stands back and looks at this claim, one sees that it simply is not true at all. According to the Government's latest figures, there are about 29 million jobs in the British economy, of which around 10 per cent are linked—note that word—to exports to the European Union. I do not want to trouble your Lordships with too many statistical references, but what it bolls down to is that about 9 per cent of our jobs support the 9 per cent of our declining trade which takes place with the European Union, while about 12 per cent of our jobs support about 12 per cent of our growing trade with the rest of the world. The remaining 79 per cent of our jobs and trade are right here in the domestic economy. So some 91 per cent of our jobs and trade is not affected by or linked to our trade with the single market and only 9 per cent is so affected.
  Now, of course, that 9 per cent is very important, but the subterfuge being practised on the British people by the Chancellor and the Prime Minister and,
  90
  indeed, by most of our political class, is easily revealed by the simple fact that none of that trade and none of those jobs would be lost if we left the European Union.
  If your Lordships think that that is a bold assertion, I can tell you that it was confirmed by the National Institute of Economic and Social Research in March 2000 in its paper entitled A continent cut off? The Macroeconomic Impact of British withdrawal from the EU. More recently, it was also confirmed last August by the International Trade Commission in Washington, perhaps the most prestigious economic think tank in the world, when it reported to Congress on the impact of Britain withdrawing from the European Union and joining NAFTA.
  The case for saying that none of the 9 per cent of our jobs and trade which are involved with the single market would be lost if we left the European Union is further strengthened when one considers that both the NIESR and the ITC reached their conclusions without considering that the United Kingdom would have no difficulty in signing a free trade agreement with the European Union before we left.
  There really is not any doubt that the European Union would sign such an agreement with us, if only because its members trade in substantial surplus with us and, therefore, have many more jobs dependent on their trade with us than we do on our trade with them. They need our free trade far more than we need theirs. We are by far their largest trading partner and they certainly need our trade an awful lot more than they need the trade of Mexico, with which they have just signed a comprehensive free trade agreement. So even Mexico has free trade with the European Union, but hardly any of the colossal hassle and none of the destructive over-regulation which we suffer at the hands of Brussels. So it really is rather silly to suggest that we could not have one too.
  Even if I were wrong about that, which I am not, the European Union's average common external tariff came down to only 1.3 per cent in 1998 under the World Trade Organisation and other agreements. So if we left the EU and it did attempt to impose tariffs against us, they really would not be vaguely heavy enough to outweigh the colossal advantages of our escape from the tentacles of the ravenous and expensive octopus in Brussels.
  So it is simply untrue to say that our jobs, our trade or our prosperity would be damaged if we left the European Union. I really hope that the Government and others will not go on telling the people that they would be.
  I also ask the Government to start to engage on this fundamental aspect of the debate about our relationship with the EU. In the last Parliament, they merely chanted that the advantages of our EU membership were so obvious that they refused to discuss what life might be like outside it. If they go on doing that in this Parliament, I shall have to accuse them of being in bad faith when they pretend that they want full and open debate.

  91
  Your Lordships may have noticed that I have said nothing about the single currency or European economic and monetary union, as it is more accurately called. There has, of course, been much debate about that. But the Chancellor appeared last night to have put it on the back-burner for a couple of years and anyway, be that as it may, I have always believed that EMU is not really the heart of the matter. It is, of course, designed to be the glue which holds the whole frightening European project together but the project will continue even if EMU fails, which is why I wish to address the project.
  I merely repeat that EMU's basic flaws have not changed since it was conceived and launched. Those flaws are that one interest rate must fit 11 different and divergent economies, where mobility of labour is low, where there is no common language and where interstate transfers on the scale required to hold the United States of America together just do not exist and nor is there any prospect that they will. These flaws have not begun to be tested yet by reality and by the international marketplace and so rather more time is required before we can see the results of this incredible experiment.
  Of course, I have not time in these few minutes to put the whole case for the United Kingdom to leave the European Union and thus avoid the constitutional calamity of our total subservience to Brussels. But last summer, I was so frustrated by the Government's refusal to discuss the case at all that I put most of it into 60 bullet points in a memorandum entitled Better Off Out. Originally, I had some 3,000 copies printed and sent mostly to Members of the other place, a few Members of your Lordships' House and to various Eurosceptic friends. I only mention it now because the memorandum has proved rather popular to the extent that I have been obliged to send out some 50,000 copies in response to demand. I shall put some copies of it your Lordships' Library in case any of your Lordships were unfortunate enough not to receive one at the time and would like to devour it now with the attention which it deserves.
  In conclusion, I fear that I must take issue with something which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said in his opening remarks, and I am sorry that he is not here to hear me say this. He said that he saw no place in this country for people who are "anti-European", and I had a sneaking feeling that he may just conceivably have been referring to people like me.
  If he was, he would be wrong and he would be making one of the other fundamental errors which the Europhiles often make. The trouble is that the word "Europe" has been appropriated by the Europhiles to mean both the Continent of different nations and the emerging EU megastate. So when a Euro-realist is rude about Europe, referring to some product of the Treaties of Rome and Brussels, he is easily cast as "Europhobic", a "little Englander" or even a "dangerous nationalist". So I hope that the noble and learned Lord can see the error of his ways and understand that most of us Euro-realists love the Europe of different nations and cultures. In that sense,
  92
  we are good Europeans. We are almost certainly better Europeans than the Europhiles. It is just that we hate the treaties and the diktats from Brussels, which are a very different target. I trust that the noble and learned Lord can think upon that and accept it and that the Government will now embark on a debate which is long overdue.
  7.29 p.m.
  Lord Moynihan: My Lords, I warmly congratulate the noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, on his elevation to leadership of the House, which, indeed, is widely welcomed. I am sure, like me, he will also welcome today's debate on the gracious Speech which represents a key stage in the continued evolution of our constitution. It is not just about the future of this House. That is just one piece, albeit a very important piece, in the broader picture which is revealed when all the pieces of our constitutional jigsaw are fitted together. It is about the role of Parliament in our society and the need for checks and balances on the power of the executive. Above all, it is about handing down a Bill of full constitutional health to future generations, one which re-establishes the place of Parliament at the heart of our nation's life and which returns our democratic inheritance to its full strength. That is why in this broader picture it is so critical to get right stage two of the reform of your Lordships' House.
  The Wakeham Commission described its task as,
  "a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to produce a coherent blueprint for the second chamber of Parliament".
  I believe that that is true. I welcome this opportunity for further reform. However, I fear from the Government's vacillations to date that it is in danger of becoming a crude whitewash rather than a coherent blueprint.
  Parliament does not belong to political parties or to the government of the day. Lasting constitutional change should not be imposed by one-party diktat. It is essential that it should be agreed by cross-party consensus throughout Parliament. Stage one of reform—no more than a crude amputation without the necessary accompanying reconstructive surgery—proved to be a painful and divisive chapter in the history of this House. But it is a chapter which is now closed.
  I feel that I should mention why I made no personal contribution during the passage of the House of Lords Bill in 1999. At that time my position was something of an anomaly, as someone who would never defend the hereditary principle per se and, indeed, believed that it had no place in a modern democracy, yet who spent six years embroiled in a complex and dramatic court case to resolve the succession to the Moynihan peerage. That was not because of any inherent belief in the privileges of the title bestowed on the holder. I did so because I felt I owed it to my family, particularly to my young children, to establish the truth, whatever it might turn out to be, and by so doing to close what had been an unhappy period in my family's history.

  93
  The Moynihan title honoured my grandfather and his services to surgery. I am proud to bear his name but I have always believed that the achievements of any noble Lord, indeed, any individual, must be his own. Now I have the opportunity and honour to make a full contribution to the debate and intend to do so. The issue before us is how we move forward from where we are today, from a hybrid House of half-reforms and compromises, towards the goal of achieving the best parliamentary structure to serve the needs and rights of future generations.
  I do not believe that we will ever succeed in creating a second Chamber to surpass its predecessor, the objective of my noble friend Lord Onslow, when we are hamstrung before we even begin by one fundamental flaw in our thinking. I refer to the assumed need to maintain the position of the House of Commons as the exclusively pre-eminent Chamber of Parliament. It is a pre-condition which stunts the growth of a modern bicameral parliamentary system and which kills the possibility of a democratically legitimate second Chamber before it can even take root.
  The Wakeham Commission's terms of reference began with that very requirement. Unsurprisingly, the model of a democratically elected and accountable second Chamber was rejected by the commission on the grounds that it would represent a challenge to that pre-eminence. The present proposals for reform tiptoe timidly around our constitution in fear of the upheaval it might cause if the upper House could challenge the lower more effectively. It is argued in particular that the greater the elected component of a reformed second Chamber, the greater the risk of constitutional conflict because the upper House could at times claim a more up-to-date mandate than the lower.
  Ironically, the future of your Lordships' House seems to be the last shibboleth in the Government's dismantling of the constitutional settlement they inherited. While devolution and deeper integration in Europe apparently cause the Government no constitutional qualms, the prospect of a House of Lords significantly strengthened by democratic accountability seems the ultimate unthinkable taboo.
  Inevitably there would be tensions between the two Chambers if they both had electoral legitimacy, not to mention the restraint a more powerful second Chamber would impose upon the executive. But that is a constitutional dilemma that we must face squarely and seek a sensible resolution. We are surely capable of devising a system in which the two Chambers can complement each other, a point made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth, rather than compete with each other. It seems utterly bizarre that in a modern democracy we should entertain the idea that is preferable to sacrifice the democratic legitimacy and effectiveness of a second Chamber because we fear the constitutional consequences if we do not. That is why I take the view that, if your Lordships' House is to be reformed to become an institution appropriate to a modern democracy, the sooner we move to the majority of your Lordships' House being elected, the better.
  94
  At present this House has limited legitimacy when it exercises its critical function of asking the Commons to reconsider legislation. We have been open to taunts from the Government about our lack of mandate whenever we question poorly drafted legislation or scrutinise ill-thought-out measures. But the sensible solution is surely to bestow such legitimacy on the second Chamber through real authority and accountability at the ballot box.
  I believe passionately in the importance of parliamentary accountability to the people. In my nine years in another place my belief in the overweening importance of democratic legitimacy was reinforced by the inner-city pavement politics of Lewisham. I came to understand and appreciate the precious thread of democratic legitimacy which connects the voter and citizen to the decision-takers and the decision-makers in government.
  I believe that any consultation process should start from the need to strengthen this vital link. A majority unelected second Chamber cannot hope to achieve that parliamentary goal. I am conscious that democratic accountability in isolation does not connect elected representatives with those people who elected them. However, as has been referred to by noble Lords, in a week when the Hansard Society has warned that Parliament has been,
  "left behind by far-reaching changes to the constitution, government and society",
  and has found,
  "serious gaps and weaknesses in the working on accountability",
  when it seems clear that the system of inbuilt checks and balances is failing to hold a powerful government to account, it is little wonder that the electorate appears to want to wash its hands of Parliament and politicians.
  For those who believe that participation is an essential part of a healthy democracy, the lesson of this general election, which produced the lowest voter turnout since 1918, was a sobering one, writ large. It showed us the gaping disconnect between the people and Parliament. There are many reasons for that disconnect which are by no means restricted to Britain alone, but I have no doubt that there was a connection between voter disenchantment and the malaise afflicting Parliament.
  It is our responsibility when debating the future of this House to strive to make a connection between what is done in Parliament and in government and the lives of the people and to re-engage the voters. The task is difficult enough for elected representatives. It is nigh on impossible for appointed Members of your Lordships' House who have no formal connection with the people whose interests ultimately they must serve, no democratic accountability or legitimacy with which to act. Disraeli was right when he said that,
  "all power is a trust; that we are responsible for its exercise; that from the people and for the people all springs and all must exist".
  I understand the hesitations raised by the Wakeham Commission and the caution with which it approached the question of a directly elected second Chamber, but I have come to the conclusion that a majority system

  95
  of life Peers and placemen, or anything that could be construed as a rotten system of patronage, has no place in a modern democracy. Under such a system the cries of "no selection without election" are likely only to gather more force.
  It will come as no surprise that I find little merit in the three models proposed by the Wakeham Commission for the election of the regional members of the second Chamber. Indeed, I cannot see much to distinguish between this remote and limited form of election and nomination as a life Peer. Not only do I believe that this elected component should be substantially larger than even model C proposes; I also believe that it is a mistake to hide the election of those Members behind either the general election or the European Parliament elections or to use party-driven list systems as the basis for election.
  I say to my noble friend Lord Norton that the conclusion that the answer is to minimise the elected component precisely because it has more democratic legitimacy strikes me as a ludicrous one. Indeed, I believe that if appointed Members are in the majority, the cohesion of your Lordships' House is even more at risk. An elected minority is likely to be perceived as possessing more authority than an appointed majority, in much the same way as some life Peers, including the former Leader of the House, the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, sought to emphasise the superiority and authority of life Peers over hereditary Peers. In a complete turnaround, the life Peers would be seen to be the illegitimate manifestation of the power of prime ministerial patronage. As one who would want to stand for election, from a personal point of view I would welcome that day.
  However, I share the view of the Wakeham Commission that one of the strengths of your Lordships' House is its independence of thought and its disdain for adversarial and partisan politics, and I would want to see these characteristics reflected in a reformed second Chamber. A second Chamber which was exclusively the creature of the political parties would be a great loss, as would be a second Chamber which was the creature of the government of the day.
  I agree with other noble Lords that it may be politically expedient, but it would be morally wrong to decouple the benefits of a primarily elected, or even a minority elected, second Chamber from overall reform of your Lordships' House and reform of Parliament. To remove the 92 in isolation of further reform would not only be unacceptable, it would be an abuse. And as so many of the 92 are government critics, it would carry the unappetising hallmark of an authoritarian putsch.
  In conclusion, I believe that we should have a primarily elected upper House, but we should not lose the expertise of many of the finest minds in this country capable of contributing to policy formulation. That is why, of the some 49 per cent of Members whom I believe should be appointed, not one should be honoured with the task of serving in a second Chamber, unless it is because of their contribution to society. They should not be appointed because of
  96
  political patronage. They should not be appointed because of their personal relationship with the Prime Minister of the day. They should not be appointed because of the donations they give to a political party. They should not be appointed as a reward for giving up their safe seat for an MP cast in the Prime Minister's image. They should not be appointed as a means of resolving personality clashes within the Prime Minister's private office or as a backdoor route into Parliament. I believe that the simplest way to do this would be to define what we mean by a contribution to society through a schedule to the next House of Lords Act. Such a schedule could include, for example, recently retired presidents of royal colleges, former Prime Ministers, TUC leaders and others who can contribute.
  I fully endorse the words of my noble friend Lord Strathclyde that lasting reform must come from cross-party consensus, from wide-ranging discussions within a joint committee of both Houses of Parliament whose remit is to consider all future options for reform before any Bill is laid before Parliament. I hope that that is what the Government have in mind when they refer to consultation.
  I want to see a strong and independent House of Lords in a strong Parliament. The achievement of that will require the wisdom to look beyond the narrow horizons of short-term political advantage and to resist the siren calls to sacrifice democratic accountability and our constitutional well-being on the altar of narrow self-interest. Therefore, I say that if the Government truly want people's Peers, let the people directly elect them.
  7.44 p.m.
  Lord Cobbold: My Lords, it is a strange experience to be once again addressing your Lordships in a debate on constitutional reform, and more particularly on reform of your Lordships' House. Having been excluded once already by the reform process, I did not expect to have another opportunity of speaking on the subject in your Lordships' House. However, finding myself to my surprise reinstated following the tragic loss of a noble Baroness from these Benches, I have now had the opportunity of witnessing the House operating under the reforms instituted in the previous Parliament.
  I must say that it appears to be working well. The balance of representation between the two major parties is much more even. The unsustainable voting dominance of the hereditary peerage has been removed and a modest representation of hereditary Peers has been retained. This group, of which I am honoured to be a member, brings a random and diverse experience to the House. It also preserves the links with the proud history of your Lordships' House and with its traditions and pageantry such as we all witnessed yesterday.
  Those of us who belong to the group—including even the noble Earl, Lord Onslow—feel a deep humility in representing that proud history. Therefore, it was with sadness that I found buried in the small

  97
  print on page 35 of the Labour Party manifesto the commitment to remove the remaining hereditary Peers. I wonder how many of the small percentage of the electorate who voted for our new Government paid their £2.50 and read as far as page 35.
  No doubt we shall hear much of the manifesto commitment in the months to come. We can hope only that the more conciliatory wording in yesterday's gracious Speech and the commitment to consultation mean that the Government are prepared to think again. I welcome the emphasis which the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, placed on the importance of genuine consultation.
  However, the question of representation by the hereditary peerage is in the end of far less consequence than the other potential changes facing your Lordships' House. This House now belongs to life Peers. Its unique and most spectacular property as a revising Chamber is that it contains among you, its Members, an unparalleled reserve of experience and expertise in all walks of life which is put at the disposal of the state at very low cost to the taxpayers.
  A fully elected second Chamber, which is attractive to purist democratic principles, could never hope to match that reservoir of talent. Your Lordships must think very carefully indeed—and the noble Lord, Lord Norton, posed some important questions on the issue—about whether the introduction of an elected element will or will not add value and will or will not pose a long-term threat to the remarkable and unique qualities that the Chamber now possesses.
  7.47 p.m.
  Viscount Astor: My Lords, I begin by congratulating the noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, on becoming Leader of the House. I am sorry to see that he suffers from a lack of support on his Benches and can assure him that at this moment he is probably more popular on this side of the House.
  I shall deal first with the proposals for the reform of your Lordships' House. Noble Lords will be relieved to hear that I can cut short my speech because my noble friend Lord Moynihan said much of what I wanted to say and said it better. He made an extremely good contribution.
  I am afraid that in the previous Session, by accepting the Cranborne deal, we on this side of the House abandoned the opportunity of forcing the Government to come clean on their thinking for stage two reform. It was a bad deal then and, in retrospect, it has not improved. The deal was based on the illusion that there would be a future role for the remaining hereditary Peers in a fully reformed Chamber. There is not such a role and there never was. I do not believe that it was ever the Government's intention that there should be.
  The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for giving way. I understood it to have nothing to do with that at all. I understood that it was designed
  98
  solely to irritate the Government to go on and do something better and in that it has succeeded beyond its wildest dreams.
  Viscount Astor: My Lords, I do not believe that it has succeeded at all. I am afraid my noble friend was under an illusion and seems still to be under it. The Government have said that the remaining hereditary Peers must go and we must accept the principle of that decision. However, this time we must have a proper debate on future composition, function and powers before we finally agree a Bill.
  I am afraid that I am a cynic. I do not believe that the Government want anything other than a permanent majority in this House. This Government centralise power and almost want presidential powers. The Cabinet Office becomes more powerful every day. Devolution and regional assemblies give the illusion of regional power, but, when devolution does not provide the majority that the Government want, they seek to change the rules. For example, the Government are considering changing the regional list system in the Scottish Parliament because at the moment it does not provide the majority that they want. Perhaps the Minister can confirm that to do that a Bill would have to pass through the Westminster Parliament. I understand that the Government are also considering a cut in the number of Scottish MPs. Perhaps, when he comes to wind up, the Leader of the House can say something about that. What are the Government's plans for directly elected regional government? We have heard the principles but no details about the proposals have emerged.
  Just consider what a second-stage reform of this House might look like. Some Peers—not that many—will be appointed by the independent commission. So far it does not appear to have appointed anyone who would not have got here anyway by one means or another. Certainly, it has not appointed a group of more "representative" Peers—that is a word that is popular with the Government—than we could have had in any other way. One would almost have preferred appointment by the Prime Minister. In the past the Prime Minister's appointments have been rather more interesting and diverse than recent ones.
  The hereditary Peers will go and perhaps 80 or so new replacements will be elected on the basis of a party list system or perhaps euro constituencies. That will not be a major change because the Prime Minister will still have power to appoint the bulk of the Members of this House via patronage. As we have seen, the Prime Minister is already happy to bypass his own rules on appointments when it suits him; he has just done it. This House will finally become dominated by cronies and its role as a revising Chamber will diminish. The House will have the figleaf of respectability. It will be partly elected, partly appointed by the independent commission, partly appointed by Prime Minister's patronage and partly based on recommendations by the parties, but fundamentally the Prime Minister will control who sits in this House. The ability to delay and

  99
  make the Government think again will be diminished and the only power left will be that of the rubber stamp.
  The Government have promised consultation, and we shall certainly hold them to that. However, we do not have the details of how consultation will work and will be managed, what body will carry out the consultation and how long the process will last. To make my position clear, I have never been able to argue that one version of patronage is better than another. I do not believe that either is satisfactory. I favour a largely elected second Chamber.
  The recent election showed the will of the people and that the Government had a mandate to get through their business. However, it also showed that only 25 per cent of the voting population of this country voted for the Government based on a 59 per cent turnout, which was the lowest. The Labour Party polled 3 million votes fewer than 1997, which is hardly a ringing endorsement. It is true that the Government have a second chance to get it right, but there will be no excuses and no blaming of the previous government. This time if they fail they will be out.
  I cannot let the moment pass without a quick swipe at the Liberal Democrats. There appears to be an increasing, but rather bizarre, claim by them that they are the real opposition. One can look at the number of seats or the percentage of the vote. The Conservative Party polled 31.8 per cent, the Labour Party 40.8 per cent and the Liberal Democrats only 18 per cent. If one looks at party membership, each of the two main parties has about 350,000 members and the Liberal Democrats have only 76,000. That is hardly "the real opposition". It is quite clear from the election that the Liberal Democrat vote is still a protest vote. The Liberal Democrats are always in favour of regional assemblies and government partly because their policies tend to vary so much in the regions. One has different policies in different regions depending on which Liberal Democrat candidate one listens to.
  I should like to say a word about changes in the government departments, some of which I welcome. For example, I welcome the creation of the department dealing with the environment and rural affairs. I regret that neither "Food" nor "Agriculture" appears in its title. I hope that the Government will take note that the farming industry is still in dire circumstances. That department may find itself at odds with the new Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions. As the new department will become the advocate of urban and rural development with its responsibilities for planning, house builders must be eyeing greenfield sites with a hungry appetite.
  The Home Office, which is the former department of the Leader of the House, has lost many of its responsibilities and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport has gained some. That department that has not been particularly successful, and we look forward to it making its mark in government rather better than in the past. It now has racing within its responsibilities. That is a sport about which the new Minister said he knew nothing. At least he comes to the
  100
  department with an open mind—we hope! Racing is not just a sport but an important industry. I am disappointed that there is nothing in the Queen's Speech about the privatisation of the Tote. That is a debate that I and the Minister have already had before. It may be that the Government will consider privatisation by way of a Private Bill, and perhaps in due course the Leader of the House will write to me on that subject.
  The Home Office will have limited responsibilities, which means that it will be able to concentrate upon, and put its resources into, the police. To confront crime is a question of manpower. There are now fewer policemen than four years ago. If one looks at the statistics outlined by the Police Federation recently, the reason why crime in New York is now one third less than in London is that that city has a much higher ratio of policemen to the population. Numbers of policemen work and cut crime. I also regret that the Government have dropped their plans for the reform of pub licensing laws. Even the former Home Office Minister Mr O'Brien has condemned the Government for that U-turn.
  In this Parliament we shall continue to hold the Government to account, and we have plenty of targets. The Dome still stands empty as a rotting monument to the vanity of this Government. In 1997 the Prime Minister said that there were 24 hours to save the National Health Service. In four years the National Health Service has not improved; it has become worse. Where have those promises left us? The Chancellor of the Exchequer has introduced 45 stealth taxes, which perhaps equal 10 pence in the pound, and the cry "Education, education, education" rings very hollow round the country. Sleaze has not gone away, Formula One is still protected and there are no plans for a ban on tobacco advertising. The Government promised to be tough on crime. They have been quite tough on crime, unless one is the Home Secretary's driver, in which case one is allowed to drive on the motorway at 103 miles an hour.
  The Government have a second chance, but it is also their last chance. My noble friend Lord Strathclyde described the opening speech of the noble and learned Lord, who I am sorry to see is not in his place, as a eulogy. I gain great comfort from the words of my noble friend because eulogies are normally given at memorial services.
  7.58 p.m.
  Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I begin with a brief comment on the speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Astor. While I wholly agree with what he said about police numbers, I point out two inaccuracies in his remarks. First, I understand that the title of the new department is "Environment, Food and Rural Affairs". Therefore, "Food" is in the description. Secondly, the noble Viscount is wholly inaccurate about the Liberal Democrats. Our claim to be the effective opposition is based on quality, not quantity.

  101
  I turn first to some of the constitutional matters which have been discussed in this excellent debate. I shall return to the issue of the reform of Parliament. I begin by saying a word or two about an interesting aspect of the debate which shows the great value to this House of the Bench of Bishops; namely, devolution. We had an eloquent description of the work of the Welsh Assembly by my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford. We also heard some extremely interesting remarks on the same subject by the noble Lord, Lord Morgan. Clearly, of great interest is the way in which the devolution of power to both the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly unlocks a whole area of enterprise, ideas and innovation which brings a new vitality to those great nations. I believe that they see only the very beginning of it. Indeed, it is increasingly clear that Westminster has much to learn already from these devolved Parliaments, not least in the way that they conduct their business, in the way their Members represent the people and how they have regenerated interest in what happens in those assemblies. We have a great deal to learn from them.
  I should like to comment very favourably on the speeches of the right reverend Prelates the Bishops of Portsmouth and Bristol who both brought out the weakness of the Queen's Speech in making no further reference to devolution of the English regions. Anyone who knows the North East well—the reference was to the remarkable debate opened by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham—will know how strong the pressure is on the ground for some kind of convention leading on possibly to a regional assembly. Anyone who looks across the Channel to Europe—I hope the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, will forgive me for this brief reference to that other place across the Channel—will see the way in which, in particular, devolution in Spain has brought a whole new kind of democracy to it. It is a grass roots upwards democracy, and one from which the Spaniards are already greatly benefiting.
  Perhaps I may also refer to the moves to increase representation of women. My noble friend Lord Goodhart referred to the unquestionably simplest method of proportional representation. However, if that is not available, other measures are obviously wiser than doing nothing at all. It is a great pity that after the recent general election representation of women in another place has fallen at a time when many people thought it was likely to increase. That greatly undermines the concept of the representative nature of Parliament.
  The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor made a brief reference to the fact that we are becoming a multi-ethnic society. Many of us greatly welcome that. In that context, it is extremely important that we do our best to increase the representation of ethnic minorities in both Houses of Parliament, and to address the remaining discrimination in some public services. I refer to yesterday's disturbing King's Fund health report about discrimination in National Health Service staff appointments. That matter needs to be addressed if we are to have a modern democracy.
  102
  Finally, I turn to the matter of Northern Ireland mentioned by another noble Lord. I shall not go into detail. There is not enough time. Given that this House will not meet again until that decision is made, I simply want to put on record that many of us recognise that we owe a great deal to the courage of the First Minister for Northern Ireland, whatever our own particular religious position may be. All of us would like to wish him well in what is likely to be an extremely difficult period of time.
  I turn to the second phase of the House of Lords reform. In particular, I should like to press the new Leader of the House, whom I have already congratulated on his elevated position, on the issue of what was meant in the Queen's Speech by the two rather distinctive words "following consultation". The right reverend Prelate referred to five little words that would make a great deal of difference to democracy in the United Kingdom and particularly in England. I should like to know the meaning of the two little words "following consultation".
  I thought I knew. Most of us recognise that the Government have been intent on removing those who have a right to sit in the House of Lords simply because of their hereditary nature. At least on these Benches, we support that. We recognise, as the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, said in his speech earlier in the debate, that many of the most outstanding members of that group, and there are some extremely outstanding contributors to the debates in this House, would be likely to return as elected Peers. Some of us would very much dislike to see them go as they make great contributions. But their claim on this House is one of quality and not one of being the son or grandson of someone who by sheer chance, and in some cases by the payment of money, preceded them as a Peer.
  A noble Lord: The same as the Liberal Party.
  Baroness Williams of Crosby: No one denies that. I make no particular defence of Lloyd George and no defence of various other persons who at the time happened to be in the Conservative Party. I would like to think that this debate would rise a little above that kind of remark. But I make it quite clear that I do not believe that at the time I would have defended Lloyd George. I have no intention of trying to defend his role in history. I have no intention of trying to defend either, a matter pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, the appointment of people to this House because of the size of the contribution they make to a particular political party, whatever that political party may be. All of us live in glasshouses on this point. We had better address the real issues.
  Having said that, I return to the issue of "following consultation". We well understand the Government's stand on the issue of hereditary Peers. No one could argue that further consultation would make any particular sense in that respect. My concern is on the issue raised by the noble Lords, Lord Strathclyde and Lord Moynihan, and others; that is to say, the issue of the composition of the House.

  103
  The Wakeham Commission, which need not be the last word, useful though it was, put forward three models which involved various numbers by various methods of an elective element in a reformed House of Lords. The issue of which, if any, model is the appropriate way to go should be the subject of "following consultation"; that little word "consultation". I am strengthened in that thought by looking back at recommendation No. 22 of the White Paper, which states that,
  "We have therefore decided the Joint Committee should be preceded by a Royal Commission [the Wakeham Commission] which will do much of the preliminary work of examining the issues and analysing the options. We do not believe this will delay the process of considering more fundamental reforms".
  We have had the Wakeham Commission. There is a direct reference in the White Paper to the Joint Committee following the Wakeham Commission. I should like to know what the Government see as the function of that Joint Committee if it is not to look, at least to some extent, at the composition of this House. We wholly agree with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, that it is very difficult to decide on the proper composition of this House if one has no idea of what will be its functions and power.
  I turn from that to ask the much wider question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, in a speech which I wish I had made myself. I thought it was a brilliant speech. In a House which still has very strong party loyalties, I find it embarrassing to have to say that my admiration for that speech is virtually unbounded.
  Noble Lords: Oh!
  Baroness Williams of Crosby: I simply said what I must say. I suspect that the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, can put up with the praise I am giving him. Who knows, perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, will get a note from me saying how good his speech was. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, will do the same.
  Perhaps I may say why I believe that the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, was so good. I have not said it on every occasion that he has spoken. The reason I think that it was so important and why it bridges party loyalties is that the noble Lord pointed out, as did the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth, that we are today looking at a very serious moment for democracy. I am not simply making the point, which is crucial to make, that at the recent election 60 per cent of the electorate bothered to vote. Let us not say that it was the lowest figure since 1918, which was the last year of a major war. It was the lowest figure since universal franchise was introduced, because young women could not vote in 1918. This is the lowest figure ever in history since universal franchise. That is extremely disturbing.
  Even more disturbing for all of us is that the MORI and Gallup polls figures clearly indicate that the proportion of young people who felt unwilling or resolutely decided that they would not vote was three
  104
  and a half times higher than for those over the age of 45. The graphs are worth careful study. They show that there is a dramatic change in the whole attitude towards voting between those under the age of 45 and those over it, where amazingly the levels of abstention or of not voting are still only in the low tens in this country. That is without any reference to educational or income differences. The striking fact is that the group among the over-45s which voted with most enthusiasm was, amazingly, the D and E income group—the least educated and the least well off among us and not, as one would normally expect, the best educated and the most well off. That by itself says something extremely disturbing.
  Why was that the case? I shall give some of the reasons. First, the Houses of Parliament are no longer regarded with particular respect by most of our fellow citizens—least of all by the young ones. The culture of adversarial yah boo politics is now deeply unpopular and is turning more and more people off democratic politics. Secondly, the range of recruitment is more and more narrow. The people coming into the House of Commons from all parties look more and more like one another. They have similar backgrounds, occupations, incomes and education. Although I am a graduate of Oxford University, I am not sure how pleased I am that around 30 per cent of all MPs come from Oxford and Cambridge Universities. Thirdly, we have a media which is now driven by the pursuit of circulation and ratings almost to the exclusion of everything else. More and more newspapers have either completely stopped reporting Parliament or report it only in the minimal possible way. What they are interested in is scandal and revelation. What they are not interested in is the deliberative work of Parliament—scrutinising, legislating and communicating. That goes to the back of the burner.
  Finally, we suffer greatly from the levels of individual donations that come to different parties, in the way—I can speak on this matter with some authority—that I have in several years of teaching politics at Harvard seen the gradual slippage of the United States from democracy towards plutocracy, with senators spending up to 80 per cent of their time raising funds to enable them to fight their next campaign. I find it deeply troubling that in this country we are seeing money speaking more and more loudly in politics, which is not good for any of us.
  What we need is not just the minimum reform of the House of Lords. We need a major look at the whole of Parliament, Commons and Lords together. We need to look at that openly and to invite people to come in and be part of that whole examination. It is the other place as much as this place that passionately and desperately now needs reform.
  One of the sadnesses of this debate—it is an important debate—is that we have heard from only one Back-Bench speaker on the Government side. I know many of those on the other side of the House. I was extremely interested in what the noble Lord, Lord Morgan, had to say. There are some excellent minds on the other side of the House. There are some excellent sources of ideas. It is a real tragedy that we

  105
  hear so little from any of them. The spirit of independence seems to be sliding away from them. In the end, the value of any House of Parliament depends on its independence of mind and the strength of its conscience. That is another reason why I am troubled and why, under our new Leader and under the new Leader in another place, we now have to look at the reform of Parliament in a much wider and more generous way.
  8.14 p.m.
  Lord Kingsland: My Lords, at the beginning of this excellent debate, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor took us on a rather nostalgic tour of the main legislative features of the previous government. His tone was—dare I say it?—one of engaging triumphalism. He trespassed, however, very little on the Government's future intentions. Perhaps that will be the task of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams. when I sit down. I should add, incidentally, how delighted I am at his appointment.
  In the course of his speech, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor made two observations which I can hardly let slip by without some comment. He referred to the devolution reforms—their target being the philosophy of "England first". I was rather surprised to hear that expression. Before the passage of the Scotland Act the scope for every Member of Parliament—whether a Member of your Lordships' House or of another place—ranged over all the affairs of the United Kingdom. That was not true after the passage of the Scotland Act.
  The noble and learned Lord rather suggested that it was Scotland that was discriminated against before the passage of the Act. But, in truth, what has happened is that an illusion of a democratic deficit in Scotland before the Act has been replaced by the reality of a democratic deficit in England after the passage of the Act. Whereas Scottish Members of the United Kingdom Parliament still have a say in what happens in England, English Members have no say in most of what happens in Scotland. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will reflect again on his doctrine of "England first", at least in the context of the constitution of the United Kingdom.
  The noble and learned Lord then referred to the importance he attaches to human rights, to the rule of law and to our fundamental freedoms under the law. As he was speaking, I asked myself whether he had glanced at the legislative programme intended for our country by the Secretary of State for the Home Department.
  What do we see? We see the abolition of the principle of double jeopardy—an abolition which we understand will become retrospective—a principle that has been around in our country for a mere 800 years. We see the Government reaffirming their intention to remove the right of trial by jury for a whole range of offences. We see the Government's stated intention, in some circumstances, to allow previous convictions of the criminal accused to be put in front of the jury before it reaches its verdict. We also
  106
  understand that in some cases assets will be confiscated from accused persons before their conviction.
  Does the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor seriously think that any of those measures conforms with the principles of which he said he was so proud? Of course they cannot. call on the Government to think very hard before introducing or re-introducing measures in the course of the first Session of the new Parliament which will impose these limitations on the liberties of the citizen.
  The noble and learned Lord said nothing about another important constitutional issue, the single currency, to which my noble friend Lord Pearson of Rannoch referred. Whatever your Lordships' views about the merits or otherwise of the single currency, there is little doubt that its introduction would have significant constitutional implications. We understand from the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer last night that it is likely to be two years before the Government decide whether or not to go ahead with a referendum. That would take us to the summer of 2003.
  If the Government then conclude that it is right to go ahead with a referendum, your Lordships' House and another place will have to consider a paving Bill for the referendum legislation. Is the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House in a position to tell us anything about that paving Bill? What form is it likely to take? For example, what kind of options are likely to be included? Is your Lordships' House to be given an opportunity to consider what question will be put to the country? Can the noble and learned Lord tell us anything about the timetable?
  Perhaps I may speculate and say that the earliest the Bill could be introduced would be in November 2003. Since there is no guillotine in your Lordships' House—I trust the Government have no intention of introducing one—we might reasonably assume that the Bill will take some months to pass through. I suppose, therefore, that your Lordships are considering a referendum that would be held, at the earliest, during the summer of 2004. I wonder whether that would give the Government enough time to recover, politically, in the event of a "No" response?
  In the light of that analysis—with which the noble and learned Lord may quarrel, but I put it to him as plausible—is it realistic to think that we shall hold a referendum at all during the lifetime of this Government?
  I should like to share the enthusiasm expressed by the right reverend Prelate for regional assemblies; but I for one am very relieved that nothing of that kind has been included in the gracious Speech. Adding another layer of government in England would make the situation to which the noble Baroness referred even worse than it is already. It would be far better to strengthen local government, whose representatives are much closer to the people, at its grass roots than to introduce an intermediate layer between the county councils, with their great historical traditions, and our national institutions.

  107
  As always, I listened with great care to my noble friend Lord Wakeham. His speech, although short, was full of interest and acute reflection. In his report, my noble friend set out three options for the future of your Lordships' House. Over the months or perhaps years that lie ahead, I hope that, before taking a final decision, noble Lords will consider two other options: first, no change at all; and, secondly, a completely elected House—perhaps established along the lines suggested by my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern in his excellent report drafted some years ago. For those noble Lords who have been unfortunate enough not to have had the benefit of reading it, my noble and learned friend suggests a completely elected House whose Members would have one term lasting for 15 years.
  I am going to disappoint your Lordships by not opting for one out of those five proposals. Instead, I simply suggest to noble Lords how I think the ultimate choice might be approached. My noble friend Lord Wakeham was quite right to point out, as were other noble Lords who repeated the same view, that composition should follow powers. Thus, depending on the powers that your Lordships' House will exercise, so one of the five choices in the portfolio of options will have to be chosen.
  But the question of the powers of your Lordships' House depends in turn on the question of the powers of another place. I submit that it is not possible for noble Lords to reach a conclusion about powers, and therefore a conclusion about composition, until another place has considered what it is going to do to rein back the powers of the executive.
  My noble friend Lord Renton pointed out, in his characteristically incisive contribution to the debate, the change of character that has taken place in another place over the past 30 years—in particular in relation to the substitution of full-time for part-time politicians—and the adverse effect that that has had on the ability of that House to stand up to the executive.
  The fact is that it is no longer possible to have a respectable career in another place as a parliamentarian. One's worth as a Member of another place depends exclusively on how far up the executive ladder one has climbed. That is a very unsatisfactory situation.
  A number of noble Lords have mentioned a report published two or three days ago by the Hansard Society. I submit—I say this with great humility—that what another place should be aiming for is to make it just as attractive for a young person entering that Chamber to become a Member of those committees which control the executive as it is to become a member of the executive itself. How would that be achieved? I think that it could be achieved in two ways. First, members of the Select Committees must be granted the same privileges as members of the government. They must be paid as much; if they are sufficiently senior, they must be sworn of the Privy Council; they must be given motor cars of the
  108
  appropriate length; and they must have access to competent staff. Above all, over a period of time they must be able to develop experience—as is the case in the United States Senate committees. For that reason, a member should be allowed to serve on a particular committee for a long period of time. Furthermore, those committees should have the power not only to subpoena Ministers and civil servants; they should also be able to take evidence on oath. That would make all the difference.
  I understand that the right honourable Robin Cook MP is somewhat disappointed that he is no longer the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. I have learnt that from the newspapers. I have no idea whether it is right. In The Times today, Mr Matthew Parris graphically depicts Mr Cook as someone who found it difficult to remain awake during the speech made by his right honourable friend the Prime Minister. I hope that, very soon, the right honourable gentleman, Mr Cook, will become aware of what an exciting and challenging task he has in front of him. There is no more important task than that which today confronts the Leader of the House of Commons; namely, to change the balance of power between the executive and those Members of the House who control the executive.
  If Mr Cook succeeds totally and successfully in introducing a programme of executive control, then the increase in power that will be required by your Lordships' House will be modest. I could then see the force in maintaining the status quo. However, if Mr Cook fails, then it is my view that nothing less than a wholly elected House will do. If he succeeds partially, we ought to aim for somewhere between those two options.
  However, I have a reservation as regards arriving at a point in between the two options, which is partly reflected in what was said by my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth. If we have both elected and appointed Members in your Lordships' House, there is a danger that, politically, we shall end up with first and second class citizens. Noble Lords will have to consider that matter carefully before moving to a decision which would allow for elected and appointed Members to inhabit the same Chamber.
  Your Lordships also have to be confident that the elections will be taken seriously by the electorate. Nothing could be more damaging to the future of the reformed House of Lords than to have a turnout of 30 or 35 per cent—that would be a very damning debut for your Lordships; yet it is difficult to see how the electorate will be prepared to go out and vote for those of your Lordships who will become elected members unless it is convinced that something can be achieved by that election.
  That, in turn, brings us back to power. So, although composition should depend upon power, power influences the enthusiasm of the electorate. I cannot pretend for one moment to have an easy solution to that problem. That is why the consultations that the Government undertake will be so important.

  109
  I hope that the consultations will be real consultations and not simply a charade. Knowing how honourable and honest is the noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, I am confident that the consultations will be true consultations. For our part, we on the Opposition Benches will be thoroughly co-operative.
  8.31 p.m.
  The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, it was a pleasure to hear the right reverend Prelates today and to see them both still in their places. They and I are soul brothers because we have listened to so many repentant sinners today that they must feel quite at home.
  I take it—coming from the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland— that a wholly elected House is official Conservative Party policy? I thought not. Shall we have two for the price of one? Is it or is it not now Conservative Party policy that there is to be a referendum on the euro?
  Lord Kingsland: My Lords, as to a wholly elected House, it may or may not become Conservative Party policy depending upon how successful the Labour Party is in changing the House of Commons. That is exactly what I said. That is a précis of what I said at rather boring length. So far as concerns the referendum, I simply asked the Government a series of questions and I shall be interested to hear their responses.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I think that the answer is, "Answer came there none". I am slightly deaf in one ear, but I kept watching the television, listening to Mr Hague saying that there was never going to be a referendum because, if Labour win, then all is doom and there would be no point in having a referendum. I think the words he used were,
  "This is the last chance to save the pound".
  and the clock started ticking—for a bit, anyway.
  I have listened to every speech that has been made today. It was a pleasure to do so. I had thought at one stage that we might restrict ourselves to the subject which most interests us—namely, the House of Lords—but there has been a very wide-ranging debate. I took as he reflection behind much of the thought—I agree with it deeply and fundamentally—that we all recognise that we are experiencing a sea change in constitutional relations in this country. The deep underwater currents are developing momentum, and our skill and craft ought to be to recognise how we can use those changes to the maximum advantage of, first, this House; secondly, Parliament; thirdly, the relations between Parliament and other assemblies, including European assemblies; and, fourthly, of course, the continuing improving benefit of the country as a whole.
  Let me deal with one or two specific matters. First, I very much welcome the fact that a number of your Lordships have said that meaningful discussion would be welcomed. The approach of the noble Lord, Lord
  110
  Strathclyde, was very reasonable. I personally share his view that if we can get consensus on reform we ought to try to achieve it. If we can get consensus on our working practices, we ought to try to achieve it. Thereafter, we would have to put our minds, on a slightly longer term basis, to those deeper issues raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby—namely, is Parliament a wholly derelict institution? Can it be improved? Why did people not vote? Why were there significant categories of those who did not vote? I agree entirely with the noble Baroness about their attitudes from my own personal experience of my daughter and her friends. Those are questions for a different day, which I hope is not too far away.
  If we can get consensus—I have to be perfectly straightforward—the Government have put their mind to proceeding on the basis of the report of the Royal Commission of the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham. When one talks about consultation and inquiry, it is just as well to do as he perhaps very gently reminded us and to go back to the volume and to see the work that was done. We should perhaps look first of all at the composition of the Royal Commission. It was hardly partisan. After all, the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, was a distinguished parliamentary servant, but not, as far as I am aware, in any Labour government. The noble Lord, Lord Hurd of Westwell, who is deeply respected on all sides of the House, was one of its other members, as was the noble Baroness, Lady Dean. I shall not go through the rest of the composition because their rather charming photograph is to be found near the front of the published volume.
  My point is that we would not feel able to engage in consultations if they were simply a device to put off reform yet again. We have had many discussions. I am entitled to the equivalent of the Burma Star with bar—even with "bishop's bar"—for all the speeches on House of Lords reform to which I have listened even in the relatively short time that I have been here. If we can get consensus, yes, but it would be misleading of me to say anything other than what has already been said several times. My noble friend Lady Jay, my predecessor, made it quite plain that we intended to proceed on the basis of the Wakeham recommendations. We have put it in the manifesto; it is perfectly plain.
  There may be opportunities for some degree of compromise, but it will be on the basis that this House should not be able to challenge the supremacy of the Commons; that it should make its own separate and distinctive contribution, particularly—I take up a number of your Lordships' phrases—by being an expert, advisory and revising Chamber. I shall, if I may, repeat what I tried to say yesterday: I believe that we can do good work if, having dealt with composition—I agree with what your Lordships said—we then get to how we work. I do not mean procedural devices but how we actually work. What hours do we spend? Why do we start at 2.30? Why do we finish sometimes at 2.30 the following morning? These are questions that we need to debate sensibly because it will all inure to the benefit of the House.

  111
  The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, asked me about Northern Ireland, as did the noble Baroness. Of course, if there is something of deep public concern which arises in Northern Ireland, then, without committing the usual channels, I personally think that any request from the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, would have to receive sympathetic consideration. We all hope and pray that such an eventuality will not occur, but we do not know what will happen.
  We should remember sometimes amid the evening euphoria that this "jackbooted" Government—so the Chief Whip tells me—still has a minority of Members in your Lordships' House, even compared with a single opposition party. If, by some unhappy, Godforsaken chance, the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats vote together, we have no prospect of success at all. That is quite a useful reminder because many people still believe that because we have a very substantial majority in the Commons we have one in this House. We do not. We can only succeed by persuasion.
  The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, put forward his views. In many ways I agree with him. He spoke of revision and scrutiny with authority. I entirely agree. I believe that that authority derives, first, from composition, and, secondly, from the way we work. If one teases out the thinking behind the recommendation of the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, about what should happen to secondary legislation—in other words, power to delay and not to veto—if one thinks about it carefully and does not dismiss it, that will give this House more power.
  At present your Lordships have two alternatives: one is to go along with that approach; the second is the "nuclear option". The nuclear option is almost never used—in other words, to cast it out entirely. However, the far more subtle and sophisticated Wakeham solution offers an opportunity for delay—which we know perfectly well is an irritant to a government (whatever their political colour) and an inconvenience. There is an opportunity for compromise to be reached between the two Houses. If one thinks about it carefully, one sees that the recommendation gives extra, effective power to this House and should not be overlooked.
  I was grateful to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth for his support in regard to our working practices. I am certain that these provide the key to making this place work in an effective and respected way.
  In a moment or two, I must to come to a matter that is rather disagreeable. First, however, I refer to a remark by the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, which I wrote down because it is absolutely right. It bears repeating and bears thinking about. The noble Lord said that it is the differences that we contribute which provide our value.
  We are not starting in the late 18th century with clean sheets of paper to devise a constitution for a newly independent republic in North America. If we were, we should be coming to different conclusions. One of the glories of this country is that it is not
  112
  brutalistically intact in the sense that one could justify every conceivable aspect of our constitutional arrangements. But the bits that work do so quite well. What we should do is to make them work better.
  I now come to the disagreeable part. I am sorry to have to say this because the noble and learned Lord, Lord Rawlinson, surprisingly, is not in his place.
  Lord Kingsland: My Lords, will the noble and learned Lord give way?
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, forgive me, but perhaps I may develop this point.
  Lord Kingsland: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Rawlinson, specifically asked me to apologise for the fact that he would not be in his place. I ought to have said that in my speech but I did not. I apologise for not doing so.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I had assumed that, which is why I used the word "surprisingly". The difficulty is that a fairly stinging attack was launched on a colleague of mine in another place. Self-evidently, she was unable to be here to defend herself. I had no notice of it and I do not know whether she did, but I shall not let it go without replying. I specifically pointed out that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Rawlinson, was unusually not in his place because I do not want him to think that I have been discourteous. I am doing this having thought about it.
  The noble Lord, Lord Renton, said, for instance—wrongly—that Ms Harman is not a qualified lawyer. She is. She has been a solicitor for many years. If I had done the work for civil liberties that she has done, at an unpopular time, I should be quite pleased with my professional standing.
  Perhaps I may refer to another couple of points that are worth looking at. Long ago and far away, Law Officers used to prosecute regularly in the criminal courts, for example in the great poisoning cases, because such cases used to last only about four days. These days, one does not get beyond swearing in the jury in the first four days. It is simply not practically possible for a Law Officer to go away from 9 Buckingham Gate for that period of time. To be away for three or four weeks is simply not possible.
  The question was raised as to whether, as a solicitor, Ms Harman could possibly represent the Government. Let me give a few examples. I represented the Government in the opening of the inquiry into the sinking of the "Marchioness". I represented the Government at the opening of the public inquiry into the loss of the bulk carrier "Derbyshire". I represented the Government in the ECHR in Strasbourg in the case of Shah. I also had the infinite pleasure, never to be repeated, of representing the Government before the Committee of this House which decided on the expulsion of the hereditary Peers. On none of those occasions did I need to be a high-rise advocate. So on reflection I believe that the criticism of Ms Harman was unfair. I leave the matter there. I know that your Lordships detest unfairness.

  113
  The noble Lord, Lord Norton, asked a number of questions. Within the appropriate segment of my 20 minutes I shall offer my reply. What is a constitution for? In my view, its purpose is to regulate the relationship between citizens and those institutions and persons which for a time control their lives in whole or in part, reflecting commonly held views of equity, culture, religion, tradition and history.
  Where are we going? We are going, as a government, if we succeed, to the important purpose of the devolution of centralised powers—I take up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Morgan—to those whose property those powers truly are. If anyone believes that this Government, having passed the Human Rights Act, are a centralising, Stalinist government, I beg leave to question that judgment.
  One question raised was: how can we make this place more democratic? Another was: how will value be added? How will the political process have added value? My answer is: we shall be more effective (added value) if we are more accepted. I believe that if we adopt the broad plank of the Wakeham reforms, we shall be more accepted; we shall therefore be more effective, particularly if we attend to the question of our working practices.
  The noble Lord asked what will be the electoral turn-out. It is wholly impossible for me to answer that question. Imagine the alternatives. In one constituency the noble Earl, the Earl of Onslow, might be standing, in another he might not. Plainly, in the first constituency there would be an overwhelming turnout— one way or the other.
  In any event, it is a fallacy which I respectfully seek to demonstrate as such, to suggest that democracy is about "the will of the people to be paramount". It is not—unless you want to go to town meetings in small habitations in Vermont, or you want to go down the Californian route where you can have a proposition which will effectively expel from office one of the best chief justices California ever had because she is against capital punishment. Why do we have an independent judiciary if it is only the brutalists, the neo-brutalism of the noble Lord, which is to be accepted. I reject the proposition that democracy is all about the will of the people to be paramount. It is not—not if you want to live in a sophisticated and indeed a civilised society.
  Lord Norton of Louth: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for giving way. He is describing not a democracy but a liberal democracy, and there is a very important difference between the two.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, given the alternative, I prefer a liberal democracy. I believe that that is what the overwhelming majority of countries, were the will of the people to be supreme at all times, would want—and if they did not, they would be wrong.
  114
  The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bristol asked about regional government. We are working on the preparation of a White Paper which will set out detailed proposals for taking the policies forward. As he rightly pointed out, this is a significant constitutional development. We want to try to get it right. That is why the detail needs to be worked through. I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate for his inquiry and I hope that I have answered him suitably.
  I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, and to all your Lordships for your overgenerous courtesy to me. The noble Lord spoke about the "docile hordes" at the other end of the building. As I was enjoying his words, I wondered why it is always former MPs who complain about guillotines and the "muzzled" House of Commons.
  The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, asked a number of questions about how we could improve this House and how good consequences would come from improved working practices. A few examples have just come to my mind: first, more sensible working hours; and, secondly, greater use of the Moses Room, which works extremely well on detailed Bills such as the data protection legislation, from my experience, and the armed forces legislation, which the noble Earl, Lord Howe, took through this place. He worked extremely effectively when we were in opposition and the present Opposition were in government. I also have in mind no votes on Committee stages of Bills, no absurdly late sittings and pre-legislative scrutiny, as, for example, on the communications Bill. I have just taken those examples at random. They are not definitive solutions but they are possible avenues of improvement that we ought to consider.
  The noble Viscount, Lord Astor, asked about Members of Parliament in Scotland. He will recall, as I do, that before 1999 there was the minimum legal number of 71 Scottish seats. Of course, the Scotland Act removed that requirement. Therefore the next Boundary Commission will use a new rota. Indeed, it is more likely than not that the number of Scottish MPs will fall, as the noble Viscount rather suspects.
  The noble Baroness, Lady Williams, spoke about consultation. I have to point out to her that the Joint Committee was mentioned in the manifesto, though not at the last election. It was mentioned in the previous one. It is worth remembering that we tried to set up a Joint Committee but we could not reach agreement on membership. We could not agree on terms of reference because, as is well known, we were adamant to the point that composition had been dealt with by the Wakeham Commission; and it was the parliamentary aspects that the Joint Committee was to consider. We were not able to reach agreement on that point. There was no commitment in the 2001 manifesto.
  I should add that, by "consultation", I mean our hope that we would be able to publish our proposals. However, we do not wish to fall into the trap heavily disguised in the long grass of having yet more discussions about an issue if we are not likely to be able

  115
  to achieve an informed consensus. "Consultation" means that one has to listen fairly and open-mindedly to other people's points of view; but it does not mean that one has to put off decision day for ever and ever, Amen. We have been discussing this matter one way or another for 100 years, though sometimes it feels like longer.
  I believe that what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, and, if I may say so, reinforced by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, is most important, as were many of the points put forward—and I say this without wishing to be patronising because I am not—by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland. These are all very important questions; but many of them are not for us to decide. On a personal basis, I agree with the noble Lord as regards giving gratuitous advice to our colleagues in another place, which neither of us ought to do for fear of being disbarred. The small greasy poll of ministerial advancement is not the only legitimate object of human ambition. Indeed, it is not. Perhaps I may give the House two examples. Chris Mullin was an admirable chairman of the Home Affairs Committee. He went into government but voluntarily gave up his ministerial car and position to return to the Back Benches because he conscientiously thought that he would do better as a public servant if he could regain a committee chairmanship.
  I shall give noble Lords a further example. I do so because when people behave honourably it is quite a good idea to recognise that fact. As far as I know, Mr David Davis was offered a position in the Shadow Cabinet which he declined. The unworthy might say, "Well, I can quite understand that". However, I recognise that that was not his motive; his motive was to serve. If I may say so—again, without appearing to be patronising—he has done extremely well as chairman of a most effective and powerful committee. Therefore, I do not believe that all our colleagues at the other end of the Palace are incredibly worm-eaten with ambition. Indeed, some of them see different ways to serve. However, taking up the "Kingsland theme", we can think about our own working practices. We are giving advice to those in the other place about how they should behave. Therefore, I believe that we ought to focus on how we might do better.
  I should like to make a few points about double jeopardy. We are talking about a Law Commission report and one that is wholly non-partisan. There is no question of the removal of the right to trial, but there is the question of the removal of the absolute power of the defendant to determine where the trial should be held, which is quite different. There is also the question of the introduction in a trial of someone's previous convictions, where relevant. It will not have passed your Lordships' attention that previous acquittals can now be used as part of a prosecution case, as the result of a decision of your Lordships' Judicial Committee.
  We have had a really interesting debate today. Perhaps we all become a little jaded from time to time.
  116
  I suppose that the remedy for a "jaded liver" is to have an election in which we played no significant part. This enabled us to be away from this place for a few weeks and then return to listen to a very high-quality debate. I do not believe that there was any repetition. There may have been a little deviation, but, all in all, those who scoff at this House—even in its present, unreformed state—might do well to read the reports of our debates occasionally. It did not seem to me that self-interest, party advantage or partisan small-mindedness informed any of the speeches that we heard this evening. I am personally grateful to your Lordships.
  I have to say that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor was not able to be here for part of the debate because he had another official engagement to attend, the date of which had been set long before this debate was tabled. I am grateful to noble Lords for this debate—
  Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, perhaps I may press him on the basic point that I put to him and which he has not, so far, been good enough to answer. Can he say whether the new Government will be prepared to embark upon national debate on our position within the European Union? Alternatively, are the new Government just repeating the mantra of the old Government; namely, that our position in the EU is so obviously wonderful that any debate about it would be superfluous and time wasting?
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: I am so sorry, my Lords. I ought to have attempted to deal with that point. I had intended to do so and had made my own notes in that respect. However, my handwriting is dreadful and my eyesight even worse. I was going to suggest that one of the benefits of a reformed and developing House of Lords is that we shall want to consider the relationships between this Chamber and the House of Commons, between this Chamber and European institutions and between this Chamber and, for example, the devolved Assembly and Parliament in Wales and Scotland respectively.
  I do not believe that there has been any shutting down of the debate on the European issue. It may have bored to death a significant part of the population—and I do not know whether or not that has anything to do with a low election turnout. However, as the noble Lord knows, one cannot say that the European debate is not being continued, at least not in this House. I recognise and honour the noble Lord's concerns about Europe. I believe that our place is to be actually in Europe. It distresses me that sometimes our opportunities are just being frittered away because of negative comment about Europe. Many of my European colleagues to whom I have spoken through the jobs that I have carried out in government in a relatively short period of time have been full of admiration for the way that we conduct ourselves in this country, though not necessarily in this Chamber.
  Lord Carter: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lady Hollis of Heigham, I beg to move that the debate be now adjourned until Monday next.
  Moved, That the debate be now adjourned until Monday next.—(Lord Carter.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned accordingly until Monday next.
  Lord Stone of Blackheath—Made the Solemn Affirmation.
  House adjourned at two minutes before nine o'clock.

  European Council, Gothenburg
  European Council, Gothenburg
  North Atlantic Council, Brussels
  North Atlantic Council, Brussels