Sitting of 27 June 2001

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. Speaker in the Chair]
PRAYERS
  Member Sworn
  The following Member took and subscribed the Oath: Eleanor Laing, Epping Forest
Oral Answers to Questions
  WALES
  The Secretary of State was—
  WALES

    Small Business
    Mrs. Betty Williams: When he next plans to visit north Wales to discuss the impact of Government policy on small businesses with the business community. [520]
    The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Paul Murphy): Last November I met members of the north Wales economic forum who included representatives of business in north Wales.
    My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State and I will continue regularly to visit north Wales and the rest of Wales to meet representatives of small business, which we recognise forms the bedrock of our Welsh economy.
    Mrs. Williams: I warmly congratulate my right hon. Friend on his reappointment as Secretary of State for Wales. I was delighted when that announcement was made.
    Does my right hon. Friend agree that G L Jones Playgrounds Ltd., in Bethesda in my constituency—a firm that he may remember visiting a few weeks ago—shows the way forward for Welsh manufacturing? It combines information technology with older Welsh manufacturing skills to produce playground equipment that is specially designed for the needs of children with disabilities and that can be marketed throughout the world. Will he join me in congratulating the university of Wales, Bangor on the way in which it has pioneered throughout Wales the teaching company scheme that successfully transfers research and knowledge to industry and commerce?
    Mr. Murphy: Yes, I am happy to congratulate the university on its achievements, and I congratulate my hon. Friend on quadrupling her majority at the general election.
    622
    I agree with my hon. Friend that small businesses are extremely important to the Welsh economy. About 144,000 firms in Wales come into the small or medium category, and nearly 500,000 people in Wales are employed in them. It is important that we manage the change in our economy from what it used to be to what it is, and it is important that small businesses, including the firm to which she referred, play their part in that.
    Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: The right hon. Gentleman knows that many small businesses in Wales are involved in tourism. What immediate, direct compensation packages has he urged his Cabinet colleagues to provide to those businesses?
    Mr. Murphy: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman about the impact of foot and mouth disease on tourism in Wales, especially in Brecon this week. We face a tremendous problem, particularly as footpaths were reopened only a few days ago. He will know that the Government and the National Assembly are providing a joint package to help tourism businesses in Wales that includes application to the small firms loan guarantee scheme for loans up to £250,000, business advice through Business Connect Wales and deferment of tax, VAT and national insurance payments. The Assembly has provided a very generous package of assistance to enable local authorities to help businesses, including those in tourism. I know that he along with everyone in Wales, accepts that there are tremendous burdens on tourism businesses in Wales.
    Llew Smith: The Secretary of State is aware that the French automotive company, Faurecia, has recently received regional selective assistance to set up in north Wales. Is he aware that only a couple of years ago, the same company, carrying out similar work, received such assistance to come to my community, and just a few months ago, sacked the work force without consultation? Its excuse was that it was leaving the United Kingdom because of problems with the euro and the exchange rate, and that it wanted to set up in Poland. Why should we continue to give assistance to companies that treat their work force with such disdain and lie through their teeth about their reason for moving away from an area?
    Mr. Murphy: I share my hon. Friend's concern about what occurred in Tredegar I know that the loss of jobs in his constituency is a tremendous blow, coming as it does after the loss of jobs at the Corus plant there. However, I assure him that any regional selective assistance grant that the company to which he referred received for moving to Tredegar will have to be repaid to the National Assembly. As he knows, the company has relocated to north Wales, where 240 jobs are at stake because of the proximity of the Vauxhall plant at Ellesmere Port. However, I share his concern about the way in which the move was carried out.
    Mr. Nigel Evans: I congratulate the Secretary of State on his reappointment, and the Under-Secretary of State for Wales and the hon. Member for West Carmarthen and South Pembrokeshire (Mr. Ainger) on their respective promotions.

    623
    The Secretary of State said that he has great sympathy for those people in the tourism industry whose businesses have been blighted by the foot and mouth outbreak. Is the support package that he described going to be adequate, given the circumstances in which those people find themselves?
    Mr. Murphy: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his words of congratulation. I did not mention all the means of assistance that are available to firms in rural areas of Wales. For example, I did not mention that the National Assembly is undertaking a rates revaluation, or that it has held urgent talks with banks, building societies and mortgage lenders, at which it urged them to be flexible with rural businesses.
    Lots of other measures are being taken, although the hon. Gentleman knows that there is a limit to what the Government can do for businesses in rural areas. However, the partnership between the Assembly, the Government and local authorities in Wales will go a long way towards alleviating what is obviously a terrible situation for people in those areas.
    Mr. Evans: I asked that question because I feel that the support being given to industries in rural areas of Wales is inadequate and needs to be reconsidered. Is the Secretary of State aware of the Wales Tourist Board survey that found that three quarters of those who responded had suffered an average decrease in sales revenue of 60 per cent., and that advance bookings for the next six months are down by 67 per cent, on average? Will he hold another meeting with the First Secretary and representatives of the Welsh Development Agency to determine what tangible support can be extended to a blighted tourist industry?
    The Secretary of State mentioned the recent tragic outbreak of foot and mouth in Brecon, but businesses need support now. I was in Ynys Môn a few weeks ago and I spoke to the owners of two businesses there that have been blighted by the disease, who told me that they need the money now. Will he give them some hope that it will be made available?
    Mr. Murphy: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I will meet the First Minister and Sir David Rowe-Beddoe, the chairman of the WDA, and that we will discuss some of the points that he raised. As far as Brecon is concerned, a meeting will be held today to deal with some of the matters to which the hon. Gentleman referred. Local authorities and agencies such as the WDA are co-operating to try to resolve the problems that have been identified.
    The hon. Gentleman will know that the £12 million package that the Assembly made available for businesses in rural areas is very generous, and that it has gone a long way towards helping the businesses about which he spoke. However, I shall certainly bring the matters that he raised today to the attention of the First Minister.

    Crime
    Mr. Win Griffiths: What discussions he has had with the Home Secretary about measures to tackle crime in Wales. [521]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Don Touhig): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales meets the Home Secretary regularly to discuss a range of issues, including measures to tackle crime in Wales.
    Mr. Griffiths: Is my hon. Friend aware that, although crime in the South Wales police area has fallen by some 25 per cent.—the second largest reduction in the whole of England and Wales—people in some areas remain worried about levels of crime? The communities that care programme that has just begun in my constituency has four projects under way that involve the police, local government, schools and the voluntary sector working together. The programme is jointly funded by the Home Office and the Welsh Assembly. Will he make further representations to the Home Office about bolstering the funding of those special projects in my constituency that are going so well at the moment?
    Mr. Touhig: I congratulate the South Wales police on a record reduction in crime in their area. I am aware of the communities that care project to which my hon. Friend referred. It targets violence and crime, drug abuse, schools failure, pregnancy in schools and sexually transmitted diseases. The Bridgend project has received funding of £446,000, and I understand that the project organisers are now putting together their development plan. I welcome the initiative, and I would like something similar in my constituency. I wish it well and I am sure that it will be a success.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Does the Minister accept that the people of Wales and of the United Kingdom as a whole want more police on the beat? More police on the beat would be a way of tackling crime. When will the Government make the necessary funds available to put more policemen on the beat so that they are visible?
    Mr. Touhig: The hon. Gentleman represents a party that has just lost a general election campaigning on a massive reduction in public expenditure. Police numbers in Wales have increased, additional money has been put in to combat crime in Wales and there has been a record number of policemen on the beat in Wales. That is the resource that the police service most needs. The Government have delivered that resource and will continue to do so.

    Dee Estuary
    Mr. Ben Chapman: What discussions he has had with the First Secretary about Dee estuary conservation. [522]
    The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Paul Murphy): I have regular discussions on environmental issues with the First Minister, and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Wales will hold regular meetings with the Assembly Minister for Environment.

    625
    In the majority of cases, such decisions as they affect Wales are a matter for the National Assembly, in discussion with the lead Whitehall Department and the Environment Agency for England and Wales where appropriate.
    Mr. Chapman: My right hon. Friend will be aware that my constituents take a keen interest in Dee conservation, on issues as varied as the management of the cockle beds and dredging at Mostyn. Is he content, given the many agencies involved, that the co-ordination arrangements are adequate and that sufficient dedicated funding is available to support them?
    Mr. Murphy: Yes, I understand my hon. Friend's point. He knows that the Dee estuary strategy has been a success—some 90 organisations in total are part of it. I will bring his point to the attention of the First Minister. I am sure that he will be glad to hear that the Countryside Council for Wales and English Nature are consulting on designating the Dee estuary as a candidate area of conservation. All those things will undoubtedly bring hope and success to the area.

    Job Losses
    Chris Grayling: What recent discussions he has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer about contingency plans for dealing with job losses in Wales. [523]
    >The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Paul Murphy): I regularly attend meetings with my ministerial colleagues, including the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
    Where large-scale job losses occur, the Government will take swift action to support people and communities through periods of change by investing in training and skills to help those made redundant, creating the conditions for new investment and minimising the disruption to the people involved and their communities. This we are already doing in the case of the job losses announced by Corus earlier this year, in partnership with the National Assembly for Wales.
    Chris Grayling: Given that the Llanwern plant closed its doors for the final time this week, will the Secretary of State give us an update on the training package that has been provided for Corus workers? Will he also tell us whether his Department or the Welsh Assembly is taking responsibility for that training?
    Mr. Murphy: I am of course aware that steel making ceases this week in Llanwern. It is a matter of great sadness to all Welsh Members, especially those of us with constituents who have been made redundant by Corus.
    The Department for Education and Skills and the National Assembly for Wales have produced a package of measures to help with training. The National Assembly is spending some £7 million on training for people who have been made redundant by Corus. The Government are dealing, through the Employment Service, with job transition schemes and job clubs at all the plants affected.
    Kevin Brennan: Will my right hon. Friend take up the case of the proposed job losses at the
    626
    Selection plant in Cwmcarn in the constituency of the Under-Secretary of State for Wales? Does he agree that the decision to axe 520 jobs and transfer most of them to Dublin is both capricious and perverse? Will he seek an urgent meeting with the management to persuade them to change their minds?
    Mr. Murphy: I share my hon. Friend's concern about the position at Selection and regret its decision to cut jobs there. As he knows, the Communication Workers Union has an alternative plan to keep those jobs in Cwmcarn. I hope that the company will consider it seriously. I also urge the company to meet the public representatives of the people in south Wales who cover that plant, including the Under—Secretary.
    Lembit Öpik: The Secretary of State will be familiar with Kings Triplex Holdings in Llanidloes, which is typical of a large employer in a small town. Tomorrow, KTH is expected to announce whether it will continue to trade in Llanidloes. Obviously, if it does not, that will have devastating implications for employment there. Will he commit, therefore, to working with the WDA and his opposite number from the Assembly, as well as with local people, to ensure that firms such as KTH get the support that they need to keep jobs in those areas? If the jobs do not remain, will he commit to working in partnership to ensure that they are quickly replaced?
    Mr. Murphy: Yes, of course I agree with the hon. Gentleman. He and I met representatives from local authorities and the trade unions recently about KTH. I hope that tomorrow will bring good news for that part of mid-Wales. The impact of such job losses in his constituency would be as serious as that caused by the job losses in Corus in parts of south and north Wales.
    Mr. Robert Walter: As has been mentioned, it is a great sadness that the last strip of steel was rolled at Llanwern yesterday. It is also of concern to the Secretary of State's friends in the trade union movement. Mr. Bill Morris of the Transport and General Workers Union in Cardiff yesterday said that unless the decline in manufacturing is reversed, the economy will become more and more dependent on financial and service industries, and that it is very short-sighted to drift into a position where no one is actually producing anything. Can the Secretary of State tell us whether he had discussions with Mr. Morris before he made those statements yesterday?
    Mr. Murphy: I met the general secretary of the TGWU yesterday in Cardiff. Indeed, I spoke at the seminar to which the hon. Gentleman referred. While we regret the job losses at Corus and other companies in Wales, we also welcome the fact that comparing today with 1997, about 34,000 extra people are in work in Wales. The way in which we manage the change from our traditional industries to the new industries in Wales—the new high-tech companies—has to be tackled by the Assembly and the Government. I remind the hon. Gentleman yet again that, as well as the job losses. Ford has come to Bridgend with 640 jobs, Conduit has come to Cardiff with 500, Toyota to Deeside with 560, Hi Lex Cables to Baglan with 160, and there are many more.

    Police Recruitment
    Mr. Chris Bryant: What recent discussions he has had with the Home Secretary about the recruitment of police officers in Wales. [524]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Don Touhig): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales regularly meets the Home Secretary to discuss a range of issues including the recruitment of police officers in Wales. He also met the four Welsh chief constables earlier this year and there was broad agreement on recruitment policy.
    Mr. Bryant: May I take this opportunity to congratulate my hon. Friend—I think that I am the first person to do so today—on both his new post and, more important, his excellent result at the general election? Does he agree that one of the major problems that faces all valley communities in south Wales is drug-related crime? Will he join me in congratulating projects such as DARE—Drugs Awareness Resistance Education—in the Rhondda, which is pioneering because it uses police officers to provide primary school education that will provide an answer for the future in drug prevention?
    Mr. Touhig: I thank my hon. Friend on two accounts—his congratulations on my appointment and on my re-election. He did not do too badly in the Rhondda either, pushing the nationalists well back. I am aware of the DARE project, which is an American anti-drugs initiative. It aims to offer educational programmes in the classroom to prevent and reduce drug use and violence among children and young people. The emphasis is on providing information, developing decision making, building self-esteem and offering healthy alternative life styles. I pay tribute to the South Wales police force, and in particular to the officers in the Rhondda who are participating in the scheme, and I wish it every success.
    Mr. Simon Thomas: Does the Minister feel that league tables have helped the morale, recruitment and retention of teachers in Wales, and does he expect them to do the same for the police in Wales?
    Mr. Touhig: It is important that we measure the performance of all public services. That is the only way to bring about any improvement. I have no doubt, as a former adviser to the Police Federation, that police morale in Wales is very good, because we are putting in record funding to recruit a record number of bobbies. The answer to many of our problems in the south Wales valleys and throughout Wales is to put more bobbies on the beat, and that is what we are doing.
    Julie Morgan: What discussions has my hon. Friend had with the Home Secretary about ending the practice of accommodating asylum seekers in the remand wing of Cardiff jail, which is causing a great deal of concern to voluntary groups, the Churches, the National Assembly and many MPs?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. That supplementary question was wide of the question before us.
    Michael Fabricant: When the Minister talks about putting more bobbies on the beat, what consideration has he given to the recruitment of more special constables in Wales? When I stay with the excellent Mrs. Meirwen Pughe at her guest house, Dolffanog Fach in Talyllyn, I am very conscious of the fact that there are not many police officers. The last Labour Government lost 6,000 police officers in Wales and in England. What is the Minister doing to encourage the recruitment of more specials?
    Mr. Touhig: Since March 1997, an extra 271 police officers have been recruited in Wales and 6,863 officers are serving in Wales. In addition, there has been a record increase in funding for the police service in Wales. Nearly £390 million has gone into the settlement this year: £56 million extra for Dyfed-Powys, £75 million for Gwent, £82 million for North Wales and £176 million for South Wales. The use of that funding is, of course, at the disposal of the chief constable of each police authority, and I know of a number who are recruiting specials, but I particularly welcome the fact that more bobbies are on the beat, and we are providing the funding to make that possible.

    Llanwern Sports and Social Club
    Alan Howarth: What information he has been given by Corus on plans for the future of Llanwern sports and social club; and if he will make a statement. [525]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Don Touhig): I was disappointed to learn of Corus's decision to close the sports and social club at Llanwern. I know that my right hon. Friend, supported by his local newspaper, the South Wales Argus, has led a vigorous campaign to keep it open, and I can tell the House that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has today written to Sir Brian Moffat, asking Corus to reconsider that decision in view of the devastation that the company has already caused the steelworking community surrounding Llanwern.
    Alan Howarth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for that. Clearly, they agree that the decision by Corus to close the club is a further body blow to the community of Newport. Is my hon. Friend aware, however, that the National Playing Fields Association Cymra has offered to take on the site and to assist local people to ensure the future of those vital recreational facilities? Will he confer with the First Minister to ensure that Corus does not get away with exploiting the site for development value? Will he use his good offices to broker a solution that is in the interests of the people of Newport?
    Mr. Touhig: I can tell my right hon. Friend that the Department of Trade and Industry was informed only this week of the Corus decision, which was made with the breathtaking logic that we have come to expect from that company. It said that it proposed to close the club because it was becoming uneconomic. It was becoming uneconomic because of a lack of usage, and the lack of usage was because Corus was making steelworkers redundant at Llanwern.

    629
    I will do all that I possibly can to aid my right hon. Friend in his efforts to keep the club and its wonderful sports facilities open, and I will certainly discuss the matter with the First Secretary in Cardiff and other Ministers.

    Rail Services
    Mr. David Heath: What discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions on rail services to Wales and the west country. [529]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Don Touhig): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State regularly attends meetings with ministerial colleagues, including my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, where they discuss a wide range of issues, including rail services in Wales.
    Mr. Heath: Given that Railtrack's forward plans have now been comprehensively demolished by the rail regulator, Mr. Winsor, will the Minister tell the House when we can expect to have a safe and efficient railway service to Wales and the west country, which our constituents deserve and passengers need to do their daily business?
    Mr. Touhig: The hon. Gentleman is right. I support him in the points that he makes, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State did on 15 November last year, when he asked the same question. Obviously, the Government's first concern is to maintain the safety of the rail network, and we are doing so in discussions and by providing funding to support Railtrack. That is most urgent. We must also ensure that Railtrack carries out the work that is necessary to overcome the backlog of repairs, so that we make the railway system safe. As a regular user of the rail service, travelling between London and south Wales, I certainly want that to happen, and I shall do everything that I possibly can, together with my right hon. Friend, to ensure an improvement in the rail network, which this country certainly deserves.

  The Prime Minister was asked—
  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Martin Salter: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 27 June.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall have further such meetings later today.
    Mr. Salter: Will the Prime Minister join me in welcoming Lord Cullen's recent report on the Paddington train crash, which claimed the lives of 31 people, including my constituent, Michael Hodder, in October 1999? Does he agree that Railtrack's failure to heed the
    630
    repeated warnings regarding problems with signal 109 demonstrates a lethal combination of complacency and incompetence? Furthermore, will he assure the House that whatever role is planned for the involvement of the private sector in helping us to improve our public services, we shall never again see a return to the botched and barmy privatisations that the Conservative party forced on the people of this country?
    The Prime Minister: First, on the general point that my hon. Friend makes, he is absolutely right, and I agree with him wholeheartedly. The distinction is between working with the private sector better to deliver a public service that remains a public service and engaging in the type of breaking up and selling off of our public services that the Conservative party engaged in, with such disastrous effects for the consumers of those services.
    Secondly, in relation to the Cullen report, yes, of course we welcome that report. The Health and Safety Commission is indeed already acting on the recommendations in the report and the Crown Prosecution Service and the Health and Safety Executive are considering whether to bring prosecutions respectively for manslaughter and under the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974.
    In respect of the railways, as my hon. Friend knows, we are now putting in a £60 billion investment and we are making the necessary changes; it will take time, but I think that he and every other hon. Member will know the importance of ensuring that that investment goes into our railways.
    Mr. William Hague: Does the Prime Minister envisage, as part of his radical health service reforms, the creation of specially built surgical units, managed and run by the private sector?
    The Prime Minister: As we said in our manifesto, the management of those surgical units could be in the private sector, but those surgical units themselves and their staff will be in the public sector.
    Mr. Hague: No wonder no one knows what the Government are really planning for the national health service. The Prime Minister says that there will be privately run surgical units—indeed, that is said in the Labour manifesto—but the Health Secretary says that under no circumstances will any clinical service be run by a private company. Clinical services are one of the things provided by a surgical unit. Being managed is the same thing as being run. The private sector is made up of private companies, so how are those two statements to be reconciled? Will any clinical service be run by a private company?
    The Prime Minister: We are not privatising clinical services, but what we are saying is that if the private sector can help in the management of those surgical units, the staff, as I have just said, will be employed in the national health service, and the distinction is between ensuring that we run and deliver better NHS services and the privatisation of the health service, which is the Conservative party's proposal.
    Mr. Hague: It does seem that the Government's position now is that the specially built surgical units can

    631
    be managed by the private sector, but clinical services cannot be run by the private sector, and the Prime Minister has not explained the contradiction. It is no wonder that he did not take Rory Bremner with him on his bus; he does different impressions of himself on a regular basis. If there is to be reform, is not it vital that it should be straightforward and honest? Is not there are danger in the Government lurching from beer and sandwiches with the unions to canapes with the contractors? Will he now accept that he has built up huge expectations in the country because of the radical nature of his promises, and that a failure to carry them through and deliver results would bring deep disenchantment in the country?
    The Prime Minister: As ever, the jokes were good, but when the right hon. Gentleman got to the policy, it was a little less good. When we took office, we inherited an NHS in which the number of beds had been cut, the training places had been cut and not a single hospital had been built under the private finance programme. The Labour party in government, working with the private sector, now has under way the largest ever hospital building programme since the war—but within the national health service.
    The distinction is between working with the private sector better to deliver the health service and the privatisation that the right hon. Gentleman favours. The other difference—perhaps he will tell us now whether he has learned anything from the election campaign—is between, over the next three years, the largest investment programme on which the NHS has ever embarked and £20 billion worth of cuts under the Conservative party. We stick by the policies that we put forward at the election; perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will tell us whether he does.
    Linda Gilroy: Will the Prime Minister tell the House what the Government will be doing to make Britain the toughest place in the western world to be a drug dealer?
    The Prime Minister: We shall be proposing two major measures as part of our legislative programme. I pay tribute to the work that my hon. Friend has done in Plymouth and elsewhere in tackling this problem. She will know that some 40 Customs and Excise staff are working on the problem in Plymouth. The first piece of legislation that we propose is to allow us to tighten the bail restrictions on people who are on drugs or dealing with drugs. The second is to allow us to confiscate better the assets of drug dealers. I am absolutely determined that we shall take every measure possible to make Britain the hardest and toughest place to be a drug dealer in the western world.
    Mr. Charles Kennedy: Returning to the Railtrack issue, when the Rail Regulator dismissed Railtrack's plans as "profoundly unsatisfactory", described Railtrack as "discredited" and went on to say that it was guilty of the
    "hugely damaging practice of neglect of its assets and hostility to its customers and funders",
    did the Prime Minister agree wholeheartedly with that analysis?.
    The Prime Minister: It is precisely for that reason that we have strengthened the powers of the Rail Regulator and that the Strategic Rail Authority was brought into being. There is no doubt that the way in which our railways are run is not satisfactory. We require the changes that we propose, plus the additional investment. Both of those things will be necessary to provide over time, under the transport plan that we have set out, the railway infrastructure that the fourth largest economy in the world demands.
    Mr. Kennedy: That being the case, can the Prime Minister please give the House of Commons an absolute guarantee that he will not import such deficiencies into other public services under the plans that he has just described? It is perfectly obvious from looking at the faces of his own Back Benchers at this first Prime Minister's questions after the election victory that no one wants Railtrack issues imported into our wards and classrooms.
    The Prime Minister: Neither will Railtrack's practices be imported into our classrooms, our hospitals or any part of our vital public services, but I will make sure that, for example, the hugely successful hospital building programme carries on. GP premises are also being built in co-operation with the private sector. I shall certainly ensure over the winter, where there are pressures and there is spare private sector capacity, that rather than leaving people in pain we are prepared to use the private sector. If the right hon. Gentleman wants to set the Liberal Democrats against any involvement of the private sector in the better delivery of public services, I am happy, but he will not be at the next election.
    Ms Candy Atherton: Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating the Eden project in Cornwall, which has welcomed more than 1 million visitors since it opened during the heart of the foot and mouth crisis, and would he care to come to Cornwall later this year to be visitor No. 2 million?
    The Prime Minister: I think it only right to congratulate my hon. Friend as well. Indeed, I believe that she is the third Labour Member who represents a seat that was targeted by the Conservatives to be triumphantly returned to the House of Commons.
    Michael Fabricant: Mine was a target seat.
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman has spent most of his parliamentary career as a target.
    I congratulate the Eden project, which I visited before it opened. It is a magnificent project and 1 million visitors is an enormous achievement. That shows that we are gradually getting our tourism industry back to normal—partly as a result of the money that is now coming from the regional development agencies—in areas, such as my hon. Friend's, that have been affected by foot and mouth disease. We obviously have to do a great deal more, which we are doing. The Eden project is a marvellous tribute to the people of Cornwall.
    Mr. Robert Walter: During the election campaign, the Deputy Prime Minister talked

    633
    about introducing regional government in England, which he also mentioned in the previous campaign. Ministers in the other place referred to it in the past week, but the Queen's Speech was silent on it. I cannot find any support in my constituency for a regional government in Bristol, which is seen as remote and unnecessary. Will the Prime Minister confirm, now that the Conservatives have retaken control of Dorset, that he will introduce legislation in this Parliament to abolish Dorset county council to make way for his regional government—or has he abandoned that barmy, expensive and unwanted idea?
    The Prime Minister: I shall try to disentangle some of those points. If people do not want devolution through regional government, they do not need to have it. That is the very principle on which our policies are based. As for the strength of support in Dorset, I gather that the hon. Gentleman was the Conservative party's spokesman on Wales in the previous Parliament, and it ended up without a seat in Wales. In the light of the results in Dorset and, in particular, of the fact that we now have a Labour Member of Parliament for that county, it would suit me— although perhaps not the hon. Gentleman's party—if he took control of looking after Conservative fortunes there.
    Mr. Peter Pike: Will my right hon. Friend make it absolutely clear that riots and disturbances, such as those in Burnley, solve no problems? Will he join calls for calm in the town because last night's incident should not be allowed to spark new problems tonight? Will he also confirm that the House condemns all racist attacks by parties, such as the British National party, that capitalise on genuine issues? Finally, does he accept that the real problems with housing and the lack of finance in towns such as Burnley need to be addressed urgently for everyone who lives in those communities?
    The Prime Minister: I agree with every word of that. First, I pay tribute to the way in which my hon. Friend handled himself in relation to events in Burnley. The situation has been difficult and he behaved responsibly and seriously. Secondly, I agree totally that there can be no excuse whatsoever for attacks on the police or, indeed, for acts of racist violence. Thirdly, I agree entirely about the hideous influence of organisations such as the British National party, which do nothing but try to stir up racial hatred in our communities.
    The plain fact of the matter is that even in the most difficult circumstances in any community in this country, the vast majority of people are law-abiding and want to live alongside each other in peace and harmony. We have to ensure that the view of the vast majority, which I believe is shared by every Member of the House, prevails over that of the few who are engaged in stirring up racial violence, which is totally unacceptable in this day and age.
    Mr. Edward Davey: Will the Prime Minister give a cast-iron guarantee that so long as he remains Prime Minister, there will be no expansion of nuclear power.
    The Prime Minister: I do not think that an expansion of nuclear power is on the agenda, but reviewing our energy requirements for the future is. That is sensible, and
    634
    the performance and innovation unit report will do it. We must consider future energy requirements, but our policy on nuclear power has not changed.
    Geraint Davies: In the election, the people of Croydon and Britain had a choice—[Interruption.] They made the right choice. It was between continuing investment and reform in the health service, which, in Croydon meant an extra 2,000 operations a year and waiting lists reduced by a third, and a party led either by someone who would cut health expenditure by billions or someone who sells fags to the Vietnamese. The people of Croydon picked Labour. Will my right hon. Friend renew his pledge on an agenda of investment and reform in the health service, locally and nationally, to provide an increasingly better service to the people of Croydon and Britain?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, on all points. I congratulate my hon. Friend on retaining his seat. The investment and reform to the national health service will continue.
    Mr. William Hague: Since a Labour Government set up a full and independent inquiry into the foot and mouth outbreak of 1967, will the Prime Minister tell us what is different about the current epidemic that makes it less appropriate to hold such an inquiry now?
    The Prime Minister: Of course, we should have an inquiry and ascertain the lessons that can be learned from foot and mouth. However, as the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons said the other day, it should be done at the conclusion of the outbreak, when we have eradicated the disease. We must also ensure that we learn lessons for the future.
    Mr. Hague: Of course an inquiry should be held at the conclusion of the outbreak, but the Prime Minister told us that we were on the home straight a couple of months ago. Losses to farmers are running at £250 million a month. The epidemic is the worst on record. More than 4.5 million animals have been slaughtered; losses to tourism are estimated at £5 billion this year; large parts of the countryside remain closed; and many rural businesses face ruin.
    Although an inquiry cannot start until the outbreak is over, a commitment to a full, public and independent inquiry could be made today. There is huge suspicion in the countryside about the way in which the epidemic began and its handling. Does the Prime Minister accept that a full, independent and public inquiry is the only way in which to allay suspicions and find the truth?
    The Prime Minister: First, I have already said that there will be a proper inquiry. As I have made clear, its nature is a matter for decision later. Of course, there will be a proper inquiry into the lessons that can be learned.
    Let me consider one or two of the right hon. Gentleman's points. He said that we suggested a few weeks ago that we were on the home straight. We are; the number of cases is way below that of a few weeks ago. I stress to him and the farming community that the disease continues to spread in specific areas for two main reasons. The first is farm to farm movements and the second is agricultural trade vehicles driving from farm to farm.

    635
    As we pointed out a few weeks ago, it is absolutely essential to continue all disinfection measures and for the farming community in particular to take them seriously; otherwise, there is a risk that the disease will carry on spreading.
    The Government can take every possible measure to eradicate the disease. We are doing that on the basis of the best scientific and veterinary advice available to us. However, as we constantly advise, and as I state again today, it is harder to do that unless every single proper biosecurity precaution is taken.
    Mr. Hague: We support the Government in taking every possible measure, but blaming others will not work unless Ministers are prepared for their actions to be fully investigated. Since the election, all responsible Ministers, except the Prime Minister, have been removed and are consequently no longer accountable to the House for their previous actions. They would not usually be called before Select Committees. Those Ministers need to be held to account for their handling of foot and mouth. We need to learn the lessons so that we can prevent another outbreak in future. May I suggest that, without a full and independent public inquiry, the confidence of the countryside will not be restored and vital lessons for the future may not be learned?
    The Prime Minister: We do, of course, have to learn the lessons, and we will learn those lessons. However, from the outset there has been only one way to deal with this disease, and that has been to deal with the infected premises and neighbouring farms—because that is the advice that was given to us and we have followed it throughout. Slaughtering millions of animals has been a ghastly and difficult business, but if we want to eradicate the disease there is no alternative.
    What is necessary now, however, is to do two things First, we must ensure that we are indeed taking the proper measures of security and disinfection on farming premises; otherwise, the disease will carry on spreading. Therefore, it is important that we all emphasise to those in the farming community, the vast majority of whom behave responsibly and sensibly, that they must continue the measures.
    Secondly, parts of the tourism industry have of course been very severely hit. That is particularly difficult given that, certainly according to the advice that I have, we do not know of a single case of a tourist, walker or rambler spreading the disease. It is important that we carry on taking whatever precautionary measures we can and give the support to the tourist industry that we are giving. That is why support running to hundreds of millions of pounds has been made available. We will carry on doing that.
    John Robertson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that although much has been done for those needing care, there is much to do for the carers who look after them? I attended a carers' conference the other week in my constituency, where carers informed me of what they feel is required. I ask my right hon. Friend please to look at the plight of carers, and to ensure that they get the necessary reward that they deserve, and not the usual thank you.
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise this issue. We are working in Scotland in
    636
    partnership with the Scottish Executive to try to improve services for carers and, in fact, have doubled the budget for carers for councils in Scotland. It is also important, however, that we give support in a variety of ways. Some of that can be financial, and some in giving breaks to carers. I agree with my hon. Friend, but he makes another financial demand. We shall have to make progress as we can, taking into account the other financial demands on us.
    Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: Will the Prime Minister please advise the House which ethical criteria will be applied to companies seeking to sponsor schools? In reply, perhaps he would be good enough to tell the House which companies he foresees will wish to associate themselves with schools that are failing because of lack of investment.
    The Prime Minister: Where a company can play a part in rescuing a state school, it is entirely sensible that we use it. Indeed, there are examples of where that has been done already and has worked extremely successfully. We should build on those examples. I am not picking out one company rather than another. The decision should depend on what delivers a better public service. I say to the hon. Gentleman, and through him, that we are not going to back down on the essential reform of public services. We are putting in the biggest amount of money that our schools and hospitals will ever see. That is going into our public services. They will remain as public services, but money alone is not enough.
    We need changes and greater flexibility. For example, we need to break down some of the demarcation between professions in the health service; we need greater diversity in schools; and we need greater flexibility in how we employ staff. We need the money, we need the reform, and we will get both.
    Shona McIsaac: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, by awarding compensation to distant water trawlermen who lost their jobs at the end of the cod war, the Labour Government put right an injustice that the Tories steadfastly ignored for 18 years? However, is he aware that concern has been expressed by my residents about the length of time that it is taking to process those claims, bearing in mind the fact that some claimants are very elderly? What assurances can he today give me and tie residents of Cleethorpes and neighbouring Grimsby that everything possible will be done to speed up the processing of those claims?
    The Prime Minister: We are committed to dealing with the majority of claims by the end of July, and we are on course to honour that commitment. The scheme has already paid something like £18.4 million to almost 1,700 claimants. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that the previous Government totally ignored the issue. It has been difficult, but we have made that commitment and we are paying out that money. In a small way, it is a significant difference in values between a Labour Government and the previous Conservative Government.
    Mrs. Jacqui Lait: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that, according to today's edition of The Times, his Health Secretary is signing an agreement with doctors to end the blame culture in the national health service. It may be a bit before the Prime

    637
    Minister's time, but he probably remembers that President Truman had a sign on his desk, saying "the buck stops here". Will the right hon. Gentleman assure me that, in the new culture of the NHS, the buck will stop and that a new culture of responsibility, whether for good or bad, will be introduced, which will apply both to him and his Ministers as well as doctors, administrators and nurses?
    The Prime Minister: Of course we are responsible for the national health service and we are happy to take on that responsibility, but I repeat that it is only if we are prepared to make the investment in the national health service and the changes necessary that we will deliver the health service that we want. The hon. Lady shakes her head, but unless we manage to get the extra money going into the national health service that we are committed to putting in and that she and her party are committed to taking out—[Interruption.] Oh, I see—the Opposition are now all in favour of more investment in the health service. Let me remind Conservative Members that they fought an election campaign on £20 billion of cuts in the national health service, which is one reason—among many—why there are so few of them.
    Siobhain McDonagh: May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the case of my constituent, Mr. Dudakia, who disappeared in December while on pilgrimage in India? Obviously, this is a cause of great distress to his family, who have spent a great deal of time and money trying, unsuccessfully, to track him down. Will my right hon. Friend do everything he can to encourage the Indian authorities to continues the search for their father and grandfather?
    The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has indicated to me that he is happy to talk to my hon. Friend about the case of her constituent. We shall certainly look into it and do whatever we can.
    Qll. [560] Mr. Paul Keetch: The Prime Minister will remember the tributes paid in the House to Bombardier Brad Tinnion who, aged 28, was the only British soldier to be killed in Sierra Leone. Charles Guthrie called him "a brilliant young man". Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that when Brad died, his long-term partner Anna Homsi was pregnant; that when their daughter Georgia was born, the Ministry of Defence obtained special Treasury compensation to pay Georgia a pension of £2,000 a year until she is 17; but that the MOD has not asked the Treasury for a similar dispensation to give Anna, too, a pension, despite the fact that she was the sole beneficiary of Brad's will and he had lived with her for 10 years? Brad gave his life for his country. Surely the Government should make sure that the people he cared for most are looked after.
    The Prime Minister: Brad Tinnion was indeed an exceptionally brave young man—indeed, all those who took part in that operation in Sierra Leone put their lives at risk. It was an immensely dangerous operation and they fulfilled it with extraordinary bravery and courage. I simply do not know the circumstances to which the hon. Gentleman has alluded, but I shall certainly look into them and get back to him.
    Andrew Mackinlay: May I take the Prime Minister back to early May? Did he notice at that busy
    638
    time that Herman Ouseley was on the board that appointed Lord Stevenson of hairdresser to select the people's peers? Did he notice also that, by an amazing coincidence, of 3,000 applications, Herman Ouseley's came out top? That, by any stretch of the imagination, would be considered irregular in both public and private sectors. If people's peers were my right hon. Friend's idea, it was not his best one—it was certainly never specifically voted for by the House of Commons. Will he ensure, first, that the name does not go forward to Buckingham palace because of the irregularity; and, secondly, will he rethink the nonsense of people's peers and press ahead with making the second Chamber of Parliament democratic?
    Hon. Members: Give him a job.
    The Prime Minister: It might have been better if I had.
    First, I thank my hon. Friend for his question. Secondly, I have to say that I think that he is a bit unfair about Herman Ouseley, who gave very good public service to this country for many years. My hon. Friend forgets that the independent Appointments Commission has taken away prime ministerial patronage, not consolidated it at all—which is more than the Conservative party did in 18 years in government.
    Finally, I have to disagree with my hon. Friend on the last part of his question, and I urge right hon. and hon. Members to think about it carefully. I do not believe that it would be sensible for the Commons to legislate so that the House of Lords became, in effect, a rival Chamber to this House. [Hon. Members: "Why not?"] Because it would produce the sort of gridlock that we do not want. The Lords is a revising Chamber and it should, in my view, have a different type of membership from this Chamber. I happen to support the proposals of the Wakeham commission, but I do not doubt that we shall have a healthy debate about them in future.
    Michael Fabricant: On 8 June, only one day after the general election, South Staffordshire health authority announced the closures of the Victoria hospital in Lichfield and the Hammerwich hospital in Burntwood, in an attempt to save £1 million a year.
    The Prime Minister may not be aware—there is no reason why he should be—that South Staffordshire health authority has a shortfall each year of £4.75 million from its target funding. If I send the documentation to the right hon. Gentleman, will he undertake personally to look into this issue, which is of such great concern to my constituents?
    The Prime Minister: I will certainly look into the matter if the hon. Gentleman sends me the information. I do not know about the circumstances that he has outlined. Whatever potential shortfall there may be from the health authority's target, it will have received a great additional sum of money as a result of the extra investment that we put in. Without getting too much of a sense of déjà vu about Prime Minister's questions before the election, the fact is that he and every other member of the Conservative party stood on a platform of cuts in investment in our

    639
    public services. [Interruption.] They may now suffer from collective amnesia, but they stood for opposition to the public spending increases that we put forward.
    I remember that when my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer first announced that public service investment, Conservatives described it as reckless
    640
    and irresponsible. I do not think that they meant that as a compliment. Whatever the hon. Gentleman says, it is important to realise the differences between the parties. Not one of the candidates in the leadership election has done other than accept the economic policy upon which he stood at the election. That economic policy would lead to boom and bust and cuts in services. We would not do it and Conservatives would.

BILL PRESENTED
  Electoral Fraud (Northern Ireland)
  Mr. Speaker: I understand that the Bill is not to be presented today.

WELSH GRAND COMMITTEE
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 107 (Welsh Grand Committee (matters relating exclusively to Wales),
That—
1. The matter of the Government's legislative programme, as outlined in the Queen's Speech as it relates to Wales, be referred to the Welsh Grand Committee for its consideration;
2. The Committees: hall meet on Tuesday 3rd July at half past ten o'clock and between four o'clock and six o'clock at Westminster to take questions under Standing Order No 103 (Welsh Grand Committee (questions for oral answer)) and to consider the matter of the Government's legislative programme as outlined in the Queen's Speech as it relates to Wales, under Standing Order No. 107 (Welsh Grand Committee (matters relating exclusively to Wales))—[Mr. Ainger]
Question agreed to.

SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 12 (House not to sit on certain Fridays)
That the House shall not sit on the following Fridays:
29th June, 6th: July, 7th and 14th December 2001, and 15th February, 22nd March, 3rd and 17th May, 14th and 28th June 2002.—[Mr. Ainger.]
Question agreed to.

Points of Order
3.32 pm
David Winnick: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am rather concerned about repeated newspaper reports, including one today, that the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards is not to be reappointed. I wonder whether we are being softened up for her contract not being renewed.
You will know, Mr. Speaker, how all of us were tarred in previous Parliaments by allegations of sleaze and why the Committee on Standards in Public Life was appointed, and later the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. The criticism made about this public official and servant of the House seems to be that she has been over-zealous. I put it to you that she is carrying out her duties in a responsible manner and that, if her contract were not renewed, it would, in my view at least, send out all the wrong signals. I wonder whether you would take that on board.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has made his views known. It is not a matter for the Chair.
Mr. Stuart Bell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. If I may say so, we heard a party political broadcast. I would urge you and the House to take no notice of it.
Mr. Speaker: That was not a point of order.

Orders of the Day

  Debate on the Address
  [Sixth 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.

  Home Affairs and Constitution
  Mr. Speaker: I have selected for debate the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition. In addition, under Standing Order No. 33, I have selected for a separate Division the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Liberal Democrats. After the first Division, I shall call a Member on the Liberal Democrats to move the amendment formally.
  The House will know, because of the 10-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches, that many Members wish to speak. It would be offensive if hon. Members approached the Chair during the opening speeches. I would not appreciate such an approach. Anyone wishing take part in the debate should listen to the opening speeches.
  3.35 pm
  Miss Ann Widdecombe: I beg to move, as an amendment to the Address, at the end of the Question to add:
  'But humbly regret that the Gracious Speech does not contain the Bills on victims' rights and reform of the licensing laws promised in the Government's manifesto, nor any measures to make prisons more purposeful, to improve the asylum system to ensure that the United Kingdom fulfils its obligations to genuine refugees, and to introduce honesty in sentencing; note that the Gracious Speech makes no mention of the cuts in police numbers that have occurred since 1997 and the crisis in police morale; further regret that the Government has failed to outline detailed proposals to alter the procedures or composition of either House of Parliament, and failed to guarantee suitable opportunities for the participation of all political parties in any consideration about the future of Parliament; further note that the Gracious Speech contains no plans to increase the democratic accountability of Her Majesty's Government and its servants, and makes no reference to the need to address the problems caused by the increased diminution of the authority of this place since 1997 and of the falling participation rates in national elections; and further regret that the Government intends to introduce ratification of the Nice Treaty without allowing the people an opportunity to express their views in a referendum.'.
  First, I should like to congratulate you, Mr. Speaker, on your re-election as the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn and on your re-election as Speaker of the House. I also pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, who opened the debate of the Queen's Speech for Conservative Members last week. On that occasion, he treated the House to one of the best speeches that Members have heard in recent years. It was all the more remarkable given the high quality of the contribution of the previous speaker, the hon. Member for
  644
  Tottenham (Mr. Lammy), who seconded the Loyal Address. Even the Prime Minister said that my right hon. Friend's speech
  "was extraordinarily witty and eloquent, which is what we expect of him."—[Official Report, 20 June 2001; Vol. 370, c. 49.]
  It is just not for my right hon. Friend's acknowledged debating skill that his leadership will be remembered. He will for ever be known as courageous in the face of adversity; his was a cool nerve and his purpose was steadfast.
  I should like to pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) for his work as Home Secretary over the past four years. He was a diligent and hard-working Home Secretary and, in my dealings with him, I always found him to be most courteous to the Opposition. I wish him well in his new responsibilities at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and I hope that he will not find the domestic arrangements at 1, Carlton gardens too cramped.
  Finally, before I get down to the business before the House today, I should like to congratulate the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) on his appointment as Home Secretary—although the fact that he got the job came as little surprise to those of us who read The Sun. I wish him and his ministerial team well in the tenure of their new posts, but I remind them that the past few days, during which there have been several important Home Office issues on the front page of just about every newspaper in the country, are the norm, rather than the exception. In that context, I condemn the recent violence in Oldham, Burnley and elsewhere, and echo the calls on all sides for restraint and dialogue.
  As my right hon Friend the Leader of the Opposition said last week, we can welcome certain elements of the Gracious Speech, although even some of them are not without danger. The Government have said that they intend to build on Conservative legislation—although they did not quite use those words—on the seizure of criminals' assets. We need to remember that, under English law, there is a crucial difference between those who have been convicted of a criminal offence and those who have not yet been convicted. While we support the seizure of assets from those found guilty by a court, I myself resist the confiscation of assets prior to conviction.
  Similarly, there is widespread concern, not just among Opposition Members, about the Government's plans both to reveal routinely to juries defendants' previous convictions and to curtail the right to jury trial itself, which we vigorously and, indeed, successfully opposed in the previous Parliament. In developing their proposals for the reform of the justice system, I hope that the Government will be mindful of the need to ensure both justness and fairness. The fight against crime should be just that—the fight against crime—and not an excuse for a general deprivation of civil liberties.
  In the Gracious Speech, despite all their election rhetoric, the Government failed either to introduce legislation to improve victims' rights or, indeed, to reform the licensing laws both of which were promised. The Labour manifesto promised to
  "legislate for a Victims' Bill of Rights to give support, protection, and rights to information and compensation to victims."
  There was no mention of that in the Gracious Speech, but that is hardly surprising, as the Prime Minister has been promising such a measure since 1994, at least. The victims of crime, it appears, will just have to wait.

  645
  The manifesto also promised
  "an overhaul of licensing laws, greater flexibility over opening times, and tougher controls on rogue landlords".
  Indeed, the Labour party made quite a big issue of this at the election, sending text messages to young voters telling them,
  "CLDNT GVE A XXXX 4 LST ORDRS? VTE LBR ON THRSDAY 4 XTRA TIME"
  Extra time for what? Was it extra time for Labour to spend breaking its promises?
  The week before the election, the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien), who was then a Minister and to whom I have given notice of my intention to raise this matter, made the following announcement, which we understand had the Prime Minister's full backing:
  "Our licensing laws are outdated, complex and in need of a radical overhaul…We are determined to bring forward these reforms as quickly as possible."
  Now, however, the hon. Gentleman has realised the truth and has accused the Prime Minister of "bad political judgment" and of breaking his promises to the British people. Last year, we were told that reforms would be in place by this summer. It now looks as if it will be 2004 at the earliest.
  I also hope that the Government will ensure that measures to tackle paedophiles who entice children over the internet through chatrooms will be included in the criminal justice Bill.
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Blunkett)indicated assent
  Miss Widdecombe: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that. The Opposition first proposed those measures more than a year ago and, inexplicably, the Government voted against them on a number of occasions during the last Parliament. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will depart from the approach of his predecessor in that respect and, because he has indicated his assent, I look forward with eager anticipation to what he has to say on the subject.
  The Gracious Speech also proposes a police Bill. During the last Parliament, police numbers and police morale plummeted to their lowest levels ever. Despite the repeated promises by the Prime Minister and the right hon. Member for Blackburn, there were many fewer officers at the time of the last election than when the Government came to power in 1997, and police numbers are still below the levels that the Government inherited. The Government must look to improve not just the recruitment rate, which was allowed to fall to dangerously low levels during the last Parliament, but also the retention of serving officers. The strength and status of the job and the attraction of serving as a police officer must be enhanced.
  All too often in the past, however, the Labour Government have been all spin and no delivery and have failed to live up to their promises. So if the right hon. Gentleman's proposals mean more targets, more paperwork for the police, more upheaval and measures that stop the police getting on with their job, the Government will have learned absolutely nothing.
  646
  The chairman of the West Yorkshire Police Federation said in March,
  "The blame lies fairly and squarely with Jack Straw…It's a total mess. There are fewer and fewer officers having to cope with more and more work."
  We all know what the record of the new Home Secretary was in his previous job: a directive a day from Whitehall for the teachers.
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: The right hon. Lady may have seen the editorial of June's edition of the Metropolitan Police Federation magazine. It says:
  "Police conditions of service suffered the biggest blow in 1992, when a…Home Secretary called Kenneth Clarke arranged the Sheehy Committee…The resultant reduction in the compensation for doing the job ensured recruiting just dropped away."
  To assist new Members, will she tell us what she thought of the decision by the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) to set up the Sheehy committee?
  Miss Widdecombe: For all that the hon. Gentleman says about recruiting falling off, we left behind 16,000 more police officers than we inherited from Labour. That is a fact of life, just as it is a fact that there are now fewer police officers than the Labour Government inherited from us.
  I see from the written answer given on Monday to my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) by the Minister for Police, Courts and Drugs that plans for the Home Secretary's much-trailed police standards unit
  "are being worked up as a priority."—[Official Report, 25 June 2001; Vol. 370, C. 48W.]
  With the Home Secretary's record in mind, we shall look with interest at the form that that unit takes.
  Measures on sentencing were also announced in the Gracious Speech, although I fear that the Government will not introduce greater honesty into the system. Indeed, according to the memo leaked in February from the previous Home Secretary's special adviser, what will be introduced will be
  "a significant softening of sentencing arrangements".
  The Government have already made it clear that they intend to retain the special early-release scheme established by the right hon. Member for Blackburn, which at present rates would see another 80,000 criminals released earlier than normal by the end of the Parliament, including 10,000 drug dealers, 10,000 robbers and burglars and 10,000 violent criminals. In answers given on Monday, the Minister for Prisons and the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Beverley Hughes), also made it clear that the Government will not allow victims to be told about that either when prisoners are released or at the time of sentencing. I call on the Home Secretary to reconsider both of those decisions.
  The beginning of any Parliament is a good time to step back, reconsider and examine the overall objectives of policy. I believe that one of the Government's major objectives in this Parliament should be to improve the lives of the group of people whom, and I admit it, successive Governments have let down and who are still ignored by many politicians from all parties even today. I have called them the forgotten decent. They are people like any hon. Member but with only a fraction of our

  647
  resources. All they want to do is to live normally. Instead, their lives are made a daily hell by drugs, thuggery, intimidation and the sheer degradation of the environment around them.
  There was some coverage in the media of my recent visit to the Arden estate in Hackney, where I observed yet again how many decent people in this country are, even today, forced to live in conditions that are entirely unacceptable. If we really want to have an inclusive society—a much-overused phrase—we have to revolutionise places such as that, where mothers cannot let their children go out to play without checking for needles first, where gardens are wrecked and windows of people's homes are broken and where the vulnerable are intimidated and every agency shrugs its shoulders. Police leave it to the councils; the councils leave it to police. The courts cannot or will not take effective action, and the pattern continues from one generation to the next.
  Geraint Davies: Does the right hon. Lady not think it a bit rich to be lecturing Labour Members on those matters when we are the ones who have put an extra 1.1 million people back into jobs? We are spending more than the previous Conservative Government did on housing, and we are lifting people out of poverty, which is the root cause of crime. We have also been investing more in police, whereas Conservative Members were committed to slashing public investment.
  Miss Widdecombe: The hon. Gentleman demonstrates what has gone wrong with the debate on this subject and why so many people just do not come out to vote. Rather than having their problems dealt with and their quality-of-life issues addressed, they are treated only to a trading of statistics by politicians. In the discussion of this particular issue I have avoided doing that. I have not talked about the single regeneration budget or all the issues that I could have talked about; I said that those people have been let down by successive Governments and I meant that.
  I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that he approach the subject seriously and consider that none of the factors that he has mentioned, however worthy they might be in their own right, have dealt with the problem of those people experiencing that menace as a daily, living reality. For them, the menace is not the odd headline in a tabloid but a daily, living reality.
  Mr. Kevin Hughes: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
  Miss Widdecombe: I shall make some progress with my speech.
  Five months ago in the House, I challenged the Home Secretary's predecessor on the plight of an elderly resident on one such estate. That man was being terrorised in his own home by gangs of youths. He actually had to put—it would be farcical if it were not so tragic—the local police station number on to his friends and family discount scheme because he was making daily calls for help. He said:
  "I am frightened to death. It's unbearable… I can't live like this. The police, as individuals, are very good, but we need more of them on the streets, patrolling the estate."
  648
  Is it people like that who are the victims of Government failure. The challenge of the next few years is to ensure that their concerns are heard and dealt with.
  Mr. Hughes: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
  Miss Widdecombe: I am going to finish this passage. Moreover, having given way before, I was not entirely enlightened by the comments that were made.
  Dealing with those concerns is the challenge, and it is a challenge that I shall continue to take up as long as I am in this place.
  It is not politically correct to talk about zero tolerance, about taking problem children off the streets and into secure training or about evicting troublemakers entirely. But unless a Home Secretary gets to grips with those problems—with, if I may put it this way, a Guiliani-style will—then not only will decent people continue to suffer, but we shall continue to produce generation after generation of disaffected youngsters who have seen no better, have been taught no better and know no better. It is not just the victims who have been let down, but the miscreants themselves. Recent events have brought home to all of us the necessity for ensuring that youngsters do know better. The murder of Damilola Taylor late last year was an appalling crime, but as charges have now been brought and the case is sub judice, I shall not comment further.
  However, there is one such case that is no longer before the courts and has dominated public debate in recent days, namely, the release on parole of Robert Thompson and Jon Venables, the killers of little James Bulger. I am sure that the whole House will join me in expressing the deepest sympathy to Denise Fergus, Ralph Bulger and the rest of James's family at what must be another incredibly difficult time for them.
  The House knows that I fully support the position taken by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), namely, that Thompson and Venables should have served at least 15 years, rather than eight. I do not find it readily comprehensible that the Lord Chief Justice should have taken the decision to cut the tariff in the way he did.
  However, I believe that there are now a number of important issues that arise from the handling of the case, issues to which I hope the Home Secretary will respond either in his remarks today or at some stage in the near future. First, there is the question of Thompson and Venables's anonymity. It can be in nobody's interest for some kind of vigilante society to be created as a result of that case. We must all hope that the media will exercise restraint, even if it is true that Thompson and Venables probably did not help themselves by ensuring that their cases were kept in the public eye through a succession of appeals. It might have been better to do as Mary Bell did: put their heads down, get on with the sentence and give the public time to forget.
  I hope that the Home Secretary will look closely at the comments last October by the Lord Chief Justice about whether or not it would have been a good idea to send Thompson and Venables to a young offenders institution. I have to say that his concerns on that score evoke some sympathy in me. However, I believe that if it was not right to send them to a YOI, we should not have been faced with a stark choice between that and freedom before an

  649
  appropriate time, and that other arrangements could, and almost certainly should, have been made for their secure detention.
  We would all hope that we do not get a repeat of this sort of case in the future, but it may happen. I hope that the course of action taken by the Lord Chief Justice will not become a dangerous precedent in that respect and that the Home Secretary will give some thought—I do not ask for an instant solution—as to whether we can avoid a choice between adult imprisonment and inappropriate early release.
  Finally, there is the wider question of tariff setting for juvenile killers. As a result of the ruling of the European Court of Human Rights, these matters are now wholly in the hands of the judiciary. However, I hope that the Home Secretary will comment—and, I hope, reassure us in his speech—about the reports that have appeared in the press that dozens of killers, including the killer of the headmaster Philip Lawrence, may soon also have their tariffs cut by the Lord Chief Justice and be released inappropriately early. While the recent judgment on the European Court stands, as do the adjustments made to our domestic legislation, I urge the Home Secretary at least to look at the arrangements that are now in place and see if they can somehow be improved.
  The Gracious Speech completely failed to mention prisons. The previous Home Secretary ignored the issue of prison conditions, and the previous Minister responsible for prisons appeared uninterested. I hope that the Home Secretary will reverse that trend and will make conditions in our prisons a priority.
  Mr. James Clappison: Hear, hear.
  Miss Widdecombe: I am so grateful.
  This might not be the most fashionable of political subjects, but it is clear that whether time in prison is spent purposefully or in idleness has a massive influence on whether, after release, prisoners become useful members of society or simply continue their pattern of offending behaviour. Education, drug treatment and, most importantly perhaps, the opportunity to develop workplace skills and a regular routine in life should be regarded as essential elements of our prison regimes. It is therefore regrettable that the Government have again failed to take the opportunity given by the Gracious Speech to take any action to provide access to purposeful work for all prisoners. Many of our prisons have, I regret to say, been exposed as places of squalor and neglect, where prisoners are allowed to rot in idleness in an atmosphere where bullying and intimidation are rife.
  Only last week, the outgoing chief inspector of prisons criticised the way in which the Government have increasingly sidelined his role and ignored his condemnation of poor conditions in many of our inner-city prisons and young offenders institutions. I hope that the Home Secretary will make the commitment to preserve the independence of the chief inspector's role. Despite the lack of any reference to prisons in the Gracious Speech, I hope that he will commit the Government to ensuring that our prisons are not allowed to decline further into places of idleness, neglect and intimidation.
  The Home Secretary must take action to ensure that all prisoners are given the opportunity to use their time inside purposefully. His predecessor dismissed such ambitions
  650
  as impractical, but the Home Secretary can realise just how practical and effective they are by considering what has happened not only in other countries but here; for example, the arrangements put in place at HMP Coldingley in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins). Such measures will have an important effect on the chances of criminals deciding to turn their back on a life of crime and to live a law-abiding life after release.
  David Winnick: The intimidation and thuggery that the right hon. Lady mentioned undoubtedly goes on in many prisons and in young offenders institutions, where only recently someone committed suicide after intensive bullying. Is she aware that many of us, certainly those of us who served on the Home Affairs Committee and hope to do so again in this Parliament, believe that the new chief inspector of prisons should be no less rigorous than her predecessor? Perhaps I am in a minority, but I have many reservations about the fact that the outgoing chief inspector's contract was not renewed.
  Miss Widdecombe: I do not wholeheartedly share those reservations, but I agree that the chief inspector's independence must be guaranteed, which is why I have made an issue of it. I hope that the new chief inspector will be as rigorous as her predecessor, if not more so.
  Another issue that still requires attention is how our asylum system treats those who are fleeing persecution. It is therefore regrettable that once again the Gracious Speech contains no proposals for legislation to reform the current system. Last Friday, in a press release, the Home Secretary expressed his desire for an asylum system that would ensure that asylum seekers were treated with respect while cases were being processed, and
  "where claims of persecution were not founded, decisive steps would be taken to ensure that the necessary steps are put in place for early return to the country of origin."
  However, it is clear that we are still far from having an asylum system that delivers that.
  In addition, we now have confusion about just how many failed asylum seekers are being returned to their country of origin. Only yesterday it emerged that the Government are deliberately manipulating—I use a neutral word—the figures to exaggerate the success of their policies. In future, dependants will be included in the figures for failed asylum applicants leaving the country, but the figures for those applying for asylum will continue to include only the head of the family. The arrival of an asylum seeker with six dependants is classified as one application, but when he is removed, that is classified as seven removals. Previously, both figures were compiled on exactly the same basis.
  The change in Home Office recording of asylum figures has never been fully explained to Parliament, and the Home Office is so desperate to cover its embarrassment that last night, a spokesman made the extraordinary claim that there was no attempt to conceal the new method of calculation as it had been published on the Treasury website. No doubt they were concealed in a section that received even fewer hits than the Deputy Prime Minister managed to get in during the election campaign. Perhaps we can expect an assessment of the Chancellor's five economic tests, news of the number of foot and mouth cases or notices of changes in the social security regulations to appear on the Home Office website in coming months.

  651
  The Government's action, of course, will have the effect of inflating the number of removals and depressing the number of arrivals. We are just days into the new Parliament, and the Government have yet again been exposed as more concerned with spin and fiddling figures than with dealing with an asylum system that is grossly unfair to genuine refugees. On present evidence, the Government's action can be described only as blatant fiddling and deception. I challenge the Home Secretary to provide an explanation.
  The Home Office's latest asylum statistics—if they have not been fiddled too—show that applications are still rising, and that those who appeal against a negative decision must face a growing backlog, especially in the appeals system, and massive delays. It is still the case that genuine asylum seekers, having fled here from real persecution, must struggle with a cruel and random system, and that people whose asylum cases have been rejected do not leave the country.
  Only this month, a report by the immigration service union said that more than 130,000 people found not to be eligible for refugee status had vanished without trace to live and work illegally in this country. The head of the Immigration and Nationality Directorate at the Home Office has been forced to admit that the number of people who have gone missing is "very substantial".
  There is nothing fair about that, and neither is it fair when genuine refugees have to face months of uncertainty while they wait for a decision on their asylum application or appeal. It is also clear that a system that is leading to a growing underclass of illegal and often exploited workers is not working in anyone's interests. However, despite the clear failings of the present system, and the Home Secretary's alleged desire—as extensively reported in The Sun—to address the failings of the asylum system, the Government have signalled that they have no intention of doing so. I hope that they will change their minds.
  I have spoken about a number of important matters, but there is nothing more important than protecting the public. As I travel around the country I see, all too frequently, the results of the Government's failure to deliver. They have failed to deliver for the people of Britain and for our public servants, and they have failed to deliver what they promised.
  Politicians may trade statistics, but people rely on their own experience. There are not many who think that things have got better. Not only has there been a failure of delivery, but all too often there has been a failure of common sense. Surely the victim's rights must prevail over the criminal's, rather than the other way around. Surely compensation payouts should be commensurate with suffering, rather than dictated by political correctness.
  What is the sense in a system that grants compensation of a few thousand pounds when a breadwinner is lost, when hundreds of thousands of pounds are given to people whose feelings are hurt at work? Parents who try to restrain their children find themselves on the wrong end of the law. Citizens who try to defend themselves or scare off villains should not have to fear the law, but should expect to be protected by it. Citizens who go to another's aid should expect congratulations, not prosecution.
  652
  The system should be on the side of the law abiding. It also needs to have a sense of proportionality. The law should not be deployed against a parent who stops his child going out to prevent her from seeing drug dealers. A system that cannot cope with significant crime should not be invoked to deal with childish spats. When a judge gives a thief back the vehicle that he has stolen and orders the police to pay damages for depriving him of its use, we are living in an "Alice in Wonderland" world. When prisoners sentenced to six months are released in just six weeks, we have to wonder what even that world is coming to.
  It is not surprising, therefore, that today there is a failure of confidence in the police, who are no longer visible in problem estates or rural villages. There is a failure of confidence in the law, which needs to be on the side of the victim, not the criminal, and there is a failure of confidence in politicians, whose duty it is to ensure that the law protects its citizens but who instead hide behind statistics and increasingly unbelievable promises.
  Conservative Members have always believed in a smaller state and that people should be able to keep more of what they earn. However, there is a balance to be struck. There is no good in making a god out of reductions in public spending at the expense of quality of life. When we wanted to promote home ownership and encourage people to take a stake in society, we undertook an enormous loss to the Exchequer through substantial relief on mortgages. The result was that we increased people's quality of life and, in the long term, there were savings as people took responsibility for their homes and for maintaining them.
  When we wanted to improve the quality of retirement, we used tax reliefs to encourage people to make their own pension provision. The result was that we improved the quality of people's retirement and, in the long term, brought savings to the Exchequer because people shared the costs of their old age.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Miss Widdecombe: We want to improve the quality of life for people suffering the effects of crime almost as a daily consequence and also for people who are not living in deprived conditions but who nevertheless have to take measures every day against the possibility of crime. We want to turn society round so that we once again expect to come home from holiday and find that we have not been burgled, rather than saying, "Thank God we have not been burgled". That demands giving a high priority to crime prevention, tackling crime, increasing police numbers, making the police effective and having a visible police presence on estates and in rural areas. In short, making this country safe and ensuring that its citizens take that safety for granted must be our top priority. Any Government who fail to make that their top priority have failed in their first duty.
  The Government were given a second chance. I very much hope that they will use that second chance to a great deal more purpose than they used the first one.
  4.7 pm
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Blunkett): My congratulations on your election, Mr. Speaker, both to your constituency and to

  653
  the House. The new ministerial team and I are privileged to take over from the new Foreign Secretary and his ministerial team, building on the foundations that they have laid and on which we will build in providing for the action needed to protect people from crime and to provide fairness and equality in all Home Office activities.
  I was given a video of a television programme made about three years ago called "How to be Home Secretary". It frightened me to death—it was all about clouds appearing in blue skies, and being overtaken by events. I was quite worried the other morning when someone pulled up alongside the kerb; I thought for a moment that my security men might have to intervene, but it was Lord Kenneth Baker, who leaned out of the window to say, "Remember, it's events, dear boy, it's events." So I am truly warned, including by the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), about what is to come.
  I should like to pay tribute to the right hon. Lady. I was about to say farewell, but she has not actually gone yet. I am genuinely disappointed that she is not standing in the Conservative party leadership campaign.
  When the right hon. Lady talked of laying aside the god of public expenditure cuts and replacing it with the quality of life, I began to warm to her. I thought that she was going to outdo the shadow Chancellor on reform and social policy, but then she undid it all once again—what a shame.
  I also pay tribute to the right hon Lady on her stance and remarks during the past weekend about issues surrounding Thompson and Venables. She is right to say that some major issues need to be addressed on the back of the Thompson and Venables parole and the original hearing. I do not intend to talk about the forthcoming decisions of the Lord Chief Justice or the subsequent parole board in terms of other cases, but there are real issues with which to deal—the sort of accommodation in which juveniles are held in such circumstances and the way in which parole board hearings proceed. I will deal with those in the weeks and months ahead with my ministerial team.
  On a lighter note, I must also tell the right hon. Lady that, as with many parts of her speech this afternoon, when she is good she is very, very good, but—
  Miss Widdecombe:When she is bad she is horrid.
  Mr. Blunkett: I would not have said so for a moment. I was going to say that the speech may have been her swan song, but a different bird springs to mind. I was in Egypt a little while ago with friends on holiday. It was late afternoon and the sun was balmy—[Interruption.] Hon. Members will see why it was barmy. I heard something in the distance that reminded me of the House and asked what it was. For a moment, I thought that it was the right hon. Lady, but it turned out to be a hoopoe bird. Anyone who has heard that bird will know that she gives a pretty good imitation of it.
  Miss Widdecombe: No, the bird was imitating me.
  Mr. Blunkett: I did not know that the right hon. Lady had such a mischievous sense of humour. However, my friends told me that she is a damn good author. "The Clematis Tree"—[Hon. Members: "Read it out."] It would
  654
  certainly take a long time. I gather that the book is both sensitive and poignant, and I pay tribute to the right hon. Lady for the work that she has done in her present post and in fighting the fight for the Conservative party with vigour and commitment.
  My hon. Friends and I could agree with a number of passages in the right hon. Lady's speech. Apart from the fact that it costs a lot of money to improve the prison system, I do not think that there is any disagreement between us. There is a real need to improve what is called in the Home Office "the estate". There is a need to adapt it to the circumstances of the 21st century, to ensure that people are properly and vigorously put to work with a positive outcome—namely, that they do not reoffend. Given that, both with custodial and community sentencing, three out of five people do reoffend and that long-term prisoners are even more likely to do so, there is a great deal to be done.
  I will not go into that subject in detail. It was not included in the Queen's Speech because it does not require legislation; it requires resources and will. Finally on that matter, we will be judged not by the people who end up in prison but by the number we prevent from having to be sent to prison. I want to get that on the record. There are now a record 66,500 people in prison— almost 50 per cent, higher than 10 years ago. That is not a record to emulate; it is a record to overcome.
  In this debate—the final day of debate on the Queen's Speech—the Government will be making clear their priorities, on the record for people to see. Those are the commitments to order, to effective policing, to measures against antisocial behaviour, to reforming the criminal justice system and, yes, as it has been mentioned, the sentencing regime, as well as to reinforcing civil and community pride—active citizenship and community development, which have been badly eroded over the years and which must be lifted to the top of the political agenda.
  This is not a job for Government alone; it is a job for our society, involving the development of economic and social policy, fair and effective immigration and asylum policy, equality of treatment and good race and community relations. What we need is not simply more legislation, but delivery: Government and people working together to create a civilised society—one that is enabled to take the necessary actions to ensure that people are not exploited or do not exploit others.
  That is the view we take in respect of the deplorable incidents in Oldham and Burnley. The message is clear, and my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) reiterated it at Prime Minister's questions this afternoon. No one gains from disorder, antisocial behaviour or damage to people and property. No one will gain from what has happened in Oldham and Burnley unless we learn the lessons rapidly, not by conducting prolonged inquiries, but by ensuring that people sit down and work out action programmes together. We cannot have these matters simply referred up to Government, important as it is that we take action to support, to advise, and to look at the resourcing and the fairness of the way in which we treat these communities. The community itself should take on the challenge and the responsibility of doing the job.
  Mobilising communities, as part of the solution, underpins our thinking in several key areas of Home Office responsibility and Home Office policy. On the

  655
  Cowley estate in Brixton, which I visited two weeks ago, I saw people pulling together to overcome the scourge of drug pushing and drug addiction. I saw people coming together, working with the police to overcome the scourge of petty burglary and of antisocial behaviour. It has been done in St. Paul's in the Walsall Heath area of Birmingham; drug pushers and prostitution were literally pushed out of the area.
  The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald mentioned her visit to Hackney. There are examples across the country of communities coming together, supported by Government nationally and locally, supported by and working with the police, to make a difference to their area. The policy of the Home Office will be to pursue that approach with vigour; the civic agenda pursued by the active communities unit within the Department will engage with those issues as well.
  With regard to the preventing and detecting and combating of crime, there can be no difference between politicians about the objectives. The issue is: how to set about achieving the goal. Overcoming disorder wherever it is, providing an answer to violent crime, will be paramount in restoring people's confidence in the system.
  Those trafficking in drugs, in guns and in people must be first in the firing line of our policies, for all those people are our enemies, and that is why the proceeds of crime Bill will be so important to tackling the exploitation of others for the profit of a few.
  As the amendment tabled by the Liberal Democrats this afternoon says, we will of course have to be vigilant about the safeguarding of civil rights and liberties, and the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald made mention of that this afternoon; but those who would use the proceeds of crime to buy the best legal advice in the country are not the victims but the perpetrators, not just of crime but of detriment to the life, liberty and freedom of others. No one, no matter how well-meaning, should use the justice system designed to protect the minority as a justice system to protect those who inflict injustice on others.
  We must get the balance right. Of course we must take care to ensure that we do not end up with the wrong presumption about the wrong person, but I make it absolutely clear that there is no point in people's willing the intent if they do not also will the means.
  I just sound a warning. Those who have the proceeds of crime at their disposal will buy the best legal brains, not merely to challenge when the Bill has become law, but to lobby and take action while the Bill is proceeding through the two Houses of Parliament. No one should make any mistake about that.
  Simon Hughes: I warmly welcome the Secretary of State to his post. I do not think that there is very much between us on dealing with the proceeds of crime, but may I ask him about the balance between the liberty of the individual and the responsibility of the state? Again, the Government have in their agenda a proposal to take away from individuals the right to choose whether to be tried by jury, because, so the Government claim, abuse of that entitlement is widespread.
  656
  First, will the Secretary of State consider the figures that show that the number of people who use that entitlement has fallen, not risen? Secondly, if he believes that there is any logical link between taking away the right to jury trial and improving the criminal justice system, will he set out the justification for it—that was never done by his predecessors—because most people simply do not believe the Government?
  Mr. Blunkett: I certainly will not do so this afternoon; I am awaiting, as is the Lord Chancellor, Lord Justice Auld's report, which my colleagues and I will consider carefully. We intend to dovetail his recommendations with our own thinking and with John Halliday's work, on which I shall comment in the next few weeks. I can promise that we shall seek radically to improve the administration of the court service in conjunction with the Lord Chancellor's office and the Attorney-General. It is important to do that if we are genuinely to deliver justice speedily and fairly. I do not think that there is anything between the hon. Gentleman and me on that matter, so the question on the mode of trial must be determined by the contribution that it makes to achieving those overall goals.
  What I said about those who exploit others is equally true of those who profit from the misery of people who seek a better life across the world. Our approach, our procedures and our effectiveness must not encourage or enable organised criminals to exploit the immigration rules and, in doing so, to exploit those in desperate need. For the sake of success in developing communities that can welcome and embrace those who come from overseas, and to ensure good race and community relations, it is absolutely critical that we avoid unjustifiable fears being enhanced by organised criminals who clearly exploit our immigration processes, misleading others about what will happen when they arrive here; and that we want an immigration system that dissuades those whose claim of persecution is not justifiable from using other routes.
  In the months ahead, I want, with my right hon. and hon. Friends, to spell out how we can develop an immigration policy, rather than simply having an obsession with asylum; how we can use a revised and updated work permit system; and how we can enhance what we are doing by considering the experience of green card proposals in places such as Canada—not to open the floodgates to people who believe that they can come to this country, but to provide sensitive and sensible routes by which we can deal with genuine claims.
  The message to those who organise trafficking in people is very clear: we are not prepared to let them exploit those who land in our country only to have to be turned around and sent back. Where a claim of persecution is well founded, we shall deal with it quickly and effectively and—to paraphrase someone else—we shall ensure that there is a safe haven, not a soft touch. That safe haven must involve considering how we treat people better when they are here and how, when their claims have been justified, they are integrated not only in our communities, but in our nation, so that we have a nationality policy, as well as an immigration policy.
  It is time to draw a line under what happened in the run-up to the general election and for everyone, including those who comment on public debate, to help us to look again at what we have been doing so that we get it right.

  657
  The Home Office team believes that the tremendous job done by my right hon. Friend, the new Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, and his colleagues has been underestimated. I visited the Immigration and Nationality Directorate in Croydon yesterday and was deeply impressed with the work there, as I have been by the work in Liverpool and Leeds and at our ports and airports. The new investment in fingerprinting, technology and the fast-tracking of cases is beginning to work only because investment has started to flow through and people are able to give time to those cases that need it.
  A speedy appeals process—together with the removal of those people who have failed to make a justifiable claim—is paramount to getting the system right. Turn-around times for new arrivals is also important. However, that has to be built on a measure of trust and decent investment so that it is possible for immigration officers and those who work with them at the point of entry to do their job more effectively. The House must support those people who have the difficult job of removals, which was mentioned by tie right hon. Lady.
  The Labour manifesto said that in excess of 30,000 people who had not justified their claim would be removed by 2003–04, which is about 2,500 people a month. We have decided that that target must be met by early next year, which enables us to have a commitment to reach and exceed the 30,000 removals by 2003.
  There has been no fiddling of the system—[Interruption.] I do not know about Treasury websites—I have enough problems handling my own without examining what Treasury officials are putting out on the Home Office's behalf. However, Opposition Members know, because they were vigilant in the run-up to the general election, that we dealt with the matter in April. It has not just been announced—
  Mr. Nick Hawkins: That does not make it right.
  Mr. Blunkett:Opposition Members may say that that does not make it better, but they know that it was debated and in the public arena in April. I know about the inference in the stories in the Evening Standard and, this morning, The Sun—yes, I am an avid reader of that newspaper; I want to discover what is happening and to take account of it. Those stories were not new. They may have been newly released, but that is all.
  Let me spell out what happens and why. There was a clear reason why the issue arose in the spring. When people claim asylum as head of the family, it is their claim that is reviewed to discover whether the alleged persecution is well founded. If the claim is agreed, the dependants that they have brought with them are treated in the same way. If it is refused, they and those who entered with them are removed, which makes them removals. [Interruption.] I am being heckled again, so let me put the arrangements on the record.
  About 20 per cent, of justified removals are dependants. I promise the House that we will not only publish the number of removals, but break it down into heads of households and dependants. There will be no fiddling of Home Office statistics; instead, there will be clarity and transparency.
  658
  We will debate those statistics openly and fairly.
  Let me say one other thing about removals. It is no good people rightly wanting to ensure that those who do not have a justifiable claim leave the country if, when measures are taken to remove them, crocodile tears are shed in the media. It will not be easy, and those who have to do it will have a difficult job, but it has to be done. We are determined to carry the policy through because it will be a prerequisite to dealing with, supporting and handling those who have a justifiable claim and allowing them to remain in this country fairly, openly and without the incipient racism that was implicit in the debate that took place some months ago.
  Fiona Mactaggart: The Secretary of State referred to the fact that there will be consequences. The people whom we are talking about as statistics are the children of people who have claimed asylum and do not have a well-founded claim. Do we all recognise that the passage of time creates genuine compassionate circumstances in some cases where children are involved and deportation is conceived of? As we have not yet managed to make the decisions as fast as we might want to, there could be cases in which the act of deportation is unfair on children.
  Mr. Blunkett: That is why we need a highly efficient system. I saw yesterday a massive speeding up of that system, and a great improvement in our ability to deal with people from the point at which they enter this country. There is still a growing backlog of appeals, partly because of the speed with which existing claims are being dealt with. Of course, there is a reduced number of applications now—14 per cent, down on the previous figures. That is very welcome. [Interruption.] It is no good the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald mumbling away. I give way to her.
  Miss Widdecombe: Instead of mumbling, I will just ask it outright. Which previous figures? Not the figures that the right hon. Gentleman inherited, because the numbers are still up.
  Mr. Blunkett:The figures to which I am referring are the year-on-year figures. The right hon. Lady knew that, because she is on top of the figures, but I hope that I am, too.
  Geraint Davies:May I thank my right hon. Friend for paying a visit to Croydon and saying such kind words about the good job that is being done there? In Croydon we are now processing 100,000 cases a year and thousands more people are being employed. Some of them were concerned at the prospect of a possible Tory victory and the loss of their jobs.
  More people are being removed than ever before. Will my right hon. Friend pledge that sufficient resources will continue to be given to turn round this difficult problem in an efficient and sensitive manner so that I can take that message back to the hard-working people in Lunar house?
  Mr. Blunkett: I can certainly underline my hon. Friend's tribute to those who have been employed, without whom we could not have achieved the turnround that is now taking place. I shall have a word with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor about the open cheque book that my hon. Friend requires.

  659
  Another aspect of the Queen's Speech consists of the police reform measures. To achieve the consensus that we all seek in terms of delivering a reform agenda—that consensus will have to range right across the police ranks and to those who work to support the police forces across the country—we need to accept that rapid progress will need to be made. We need a modernisation programme as much for the sake of those working in the service as for those who rely on it.
  The disparities that exist between force performance are not acceptable. The disparities in some high-profile but probably peripheral matters such as sickness absenteeism, which varies by a factor of 80 per cent. across forces areas; the rate of medical early retirement, which varies between 5 and 58 per cent; and delivery measures, which we need to examine, all lead us to believe that change is needed. That is change not only in regulations and management but in the perspective on what the police force can do by working with others. We are therefore establishing a new standards unit, which will work with police services throughout the country, concentrating especially on the basic command unit. It will work with the police on spreading best practice, identifying management and delivery problems, scrutinising the way in which work on the ground gels with wider crime reduction partnerships and with our other policies, for example, on drug prevention and drug problems.
  Tim Loughton: Do those changes include unilaterally sacking chief constables? On what basis did the right hon. Gentleman flex his new Home Secretarial muscles earlier this week to give a thinly veiled instruction to the Sussex police authority to sack the chief constable? What does that mean for the future of independent police authorities, which are responsible for operational matters? If the right hon. Gentleman is taking responsibility for operational matters on himself, will he take personal responsibility for the loss of 273 police officers in Sussex in the past four years?
  Mr. Blunkett: I hope that the renewed morale and motivation of those in the Sussex service will lead to good recruitment and considerably improved outcomes. That is the intention of senior personnel in the force who wish to effect that. I shall not make a statement in answer to a question from the hon. Gentleman. Suffice it to say that I worked within my powers. I did not sack the chief constable of Sussex. I suggested to the police authority, which will receive a report from Lord Carlile next week, that, after three and a half years, it would be helpful if the matter were resolved. I am glad that the chief constable helped us to do that. The case emphasises the importance of an independent police complaints system, which we shall introduce in this Parliament. Not only independence, but speed and effectiveness of operation are important.
  The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald asked about bureaucracy. One of the standards unit's tasks will be to examine the current process, from the moment of arrest through charging and the criminal justice system to conviction. At present the process is euphemistically described in Home Office parlance as attrition—I hope we shall find a better word, and one which means something to people outside—which means bureaucratic
  660
  delay: the process to which I referred earlier in answer to the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey. I hope that we can reduce that bureaucracy.
  I was pleased to accept the suggestion of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Police, Courts and Drugs that we should monitor immediately the way in which a police constable's average day is bedevilled by form filling and procedures that must be followed. They include not only updating technology, which, for many forces, is stuck in the 19th century, but the actual processes that constables have to undertake. We will do that because it will both lift morale and speed up the system to ensure effective outcomes.
  Mrs. Louise Ellman: My question refers to the answer that my right hon. Friend gave the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton). Does he agree that three and a half years is far too long to wait for action after the fatal shooting by police of an unarmed, innocent man? Does he further agree that it took his involvement for the chief constable of Sussex to act? Will my right hon. Friend consider further inquiries into the James Ashley case to gain the best information on reforming the complaints system?
  Mr. Blunkett: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the work that she has done over the past three and a half years with hon. Friends representing the areas covered by the Sussex force. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Police, Courts and Drugs will be meeting her and the family concerned on Monday. I hope that, together with the Carlile report, the continuing work of the Police Complaints Authority and the considerable help of the police authority itself, we will be able to make sense of the matter without a further public inquiry.
  I am very keen—this is the answer to the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton)—not to go through the niceties of process, but to get action from every level to ensure that we deal with cases fairly and openly, and that people on the ground know that police forces are addressing themselves to the fair, just and safe policing of their areas for the sake of everybody in those communities.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Blunkett: I shall give way to the hon. Member on the Liberal Democrat Benches.
  Lembit Öpik: I have listened with great interest to what the Home Secretary has been saying, particularly about the Police Complaints Authority. His comments will be most welcome in Wales. However, he has not yet said anything about the degree to which the powers will be devolved to the Welsh Assembly. Given that this is a debate about home affairs and the constitution, I was wondering whether he was planning to indicate the degree to which the Government intend to devolve such powers to the Welsh Assembly.
  Mr. Blunkett: I shall be discussing those matters with the Secretary of State for Wales and other colleagues. I am happy to write to the hon. Gentleman in the meantime setting out where we are on that point.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Blunkett: I shall make a moment's progress and then give again.

  661
  We have also taken responsibility for the drugs unit from the Cabinet Office and will be integrating delivery and policy in a way that I hope will dovetail with our drive against organised crime. We have already said—I simply repeat it—that the job of the police, like that of the intelligence service, is to concentrate on the trafficking and pushing of category A drugs and their dangers in the local community. We shall be evaluating the experiment that Commander Brian Paddock of the Lambeth division is undertaking in London.
  Norman Baker: Although many in Sussex understand that there is considerable disquiet about the way in which the Hastings shooting occurred and has been subsequently investigated, there is also disquiet about the way in which the Home Secretary appears to have sacked the chief constable by press release, or encouraged that to occur. Will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that his tenure as Home Secretary will not be characterised by instructions to police authorities and the diminution of their powers, and that he recognises that people who serve police authorities well have a genuine role to play? Their role, as well as that of the chief constable, has been undermined by his action.
  Mr. Blunkett: I shall discuss with police authorities how they can do their job better and more quickly and be more accountable than some of them are at the moment. The job of Home Secretary is not to protect police authorities but to protect the public, and while I am in the job, that is what we will do.
  Mr. John Bercow: I congratulate the Home Secretary warmly on his appointment and I wish him success in discharging his responsibilities.
  Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with the former Minister of State, Home Office, the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), who told the House in a written answer that
  "The number of people leaving a profession may be taken as an indicator of morale"?—[Official Report, 11 December 2000; Vol. 359, c. 65W.]
  If he does agree with his hon. Friend on that score, why does he not accept that since Labour came to office, the 60 per cent. rise in resignations from the police service, the cut in police numbers of 1,600 and the dramatic reduction by more than 6,000 in the number of special constables constitute a damning indictment of his Government's record?
  Mr. Blunkett: No, I do not accept that at all. Getting 1,353 additional recruits in the last 10 months of last year was a good indication that progress was being made.
  I shall spell out in a moment our intentions regarding open and transparent targets—in fact, I shall do so now so that we are clear about where we start and where we are going in terms of police numbers. We have a commitment to 6,000 extra recruits which will be achieved by March 2003. However, it should be absolutely clear that police recruits and police in post are not one and the same. Although we will fulfil the manifesto promise on police recruits, I am keen to set targets also for police in post and full-time equivalents.
  Let us assume that there are 125,500 police in post now and that we rapidly—by autumn—reach the number that the Opposition always use which, if memory serves,
  662
  is 127,158, the figure in spring 1997. In our manifesto we promised the greatest number of police in post ever—128,280. Let us say that we manage to achieve that by next year. Let us then assume—the previous Home Secretary mentioned this during the general election campaign, but it was not in our manifesto, nor is it a public service agreement target—that we reach at least 130,000 police within the lifetime of this Parliament.
  I would like us to do better than that. If we do and if I am still Home Secretary when we do, I shall set a new target. I shall want the crime fighting fund to be renewed, because it was that fund and the direction given by the previous Home Secretary and his Ministers that achieved the uplift in numbers. The relationship between the chief constable, the police authority and the Home Secretary must be a positive one, because if Parliament wants more police and wants them on site, in the streets, available, accessible, there to protect against crime and the fear of crime, we must work together to ensure that that happens. I hope that that satisfies the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Bercow: I am not easily satisfied.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Beverley Hughes): That's your problem, not ours.
  Mr. Blunkett: My hon. Friend is quite right about that.
  Ms Joan Walley: I welcome the targets and the vision that my right hon. Friend is setting out for us today. However, we inherited from the Conservative Government the huge problem of the numbers of police taking early retirement. There are large disparities between different forces throughout the country: some forces, such as Staffordshire, are having to meet a greater cost than others in terms of pension payments. Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that he will consider closely ways in which to meet the cost of those pensions, so that we can iron out disparities and set across-the-board targets for new recruitment on the ground?
  Mr. Blunkett: I cannot give an assurance now on the meeting of the various pension requirements that are picked up by the devolved police budgets. There are enormous calls on the police grant: I cannot recall the exact figure, but a substantial percentage of the police budget—about one fifth—is now spent on police pension requirements, and there is an issue in terms of the impact in different parts of the country. None the less, my hon. Friend makes a valid point that needs consideration.
  I have spoken for longer than I intended, but I should like to speak briefly about the criminal justice proposals in the Queen's Speech. We shall consult on the proposals from John Halliday and Lord Justice Auld; on the proposals made in the Command Paper "Criminal Justice: the Way Ahead"; and on other suggestions now being made to modernise court services and the criminal justice system and provide a far more effective way in which to bring those who have committed a crime to justice and deal with them and to deal with sentencing—in other words, the possibility of a penal code similar to those which apply in other countries. I offer the opposition parties an opportunity to participate.

  663
  There are few countries in the world that have the constant debate on these matters and the constant change that we have. There is more legislation than it is possible to spend time reading in this area. No sooner has a Bill been passed than another one is being passed to update it. I am still investigating which orders exist that have not yet been laid. The process goes back donkey's years. Over the recent past of the Home Office, the entire Department has been geared to legislation. It is time to get a grip on what we want to do, to settle it in this Parliament, and to allow our successors to settle down to implementing what we decide.
  I offer the opposition parties the opportunity over the months ahead to work out, without prevarication, whether we can find consensus on the criminal justice system with the Lord Chancellor and the Attorney-General. Let us see whether we can work out a penal code and a sentencing system that are followed by the most appropriate measures to stop people offending, to reduce recidivism, to ensure that people are re-integrated and to protect our communities. I offer Back Benchers the opportunity to come forward to work with us, and to bring forward their suggestions on how they would wish to proceed.
  It may be that the opposition parties will not wish to take up the opportunity. Obviously, the main opposition party will have to consider the matter following its leadership contest. However, it seems to me that it is time to stop the knockabout in this place and to deliver to those whom we represent.
  4.52 pm
  Simon Hughes: I repeat my welcome to the new Home Secretary. He will recall that he has had many debates with me over the years, including long before we were both elected to this place. I thank him for what I think the House will accept was a reasoned, reasonable and constructive speech. I welcome his colleagues in the Home Department team. We have an entirely new team of Home Office Ministers—not a single stone unturned.
  Mr. Blunkett: Not a single lawyer.
  Simon Hughes: That might be a good thing.
  I think that I am right in saying that although many Home Office responsibilities have been hived off elsewhere in the new Parliament, only one has been acquired—the responsibility for drugs that previously rested with the Cabinet Office. It was entirely logical that that should happen. I believe, however, that the number of Ministers has not decreased, so we have seen a slimming of responsibilities but not of the number of people in charge. That might be an issue to be dealt with in due course.
  I join the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) in expressing my thanks to the Foreign Secretary. I was always grateful, as were my colleagues, for his courtesy in ensuring that we were properly informed, and invited to participate where appropriate. I hope that the new Home Secretary's offer, which my colleagues and I accept unreservedly, will continue a policy that we have always adopted from the Liberal Democrat Benches: to seek to be constructive and
  664
  to collaborate with the Government of the day, and to seek to agree where possible, and as far as that is possible, while reserving the proper constitutional duty to be constructively critical wherever we feel that it is necessary too.
  The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald continues, as I do, to have home affairs responsibilities. We might not agree on a raft of matters, even though as her Member I seek to represent her to the best of my ability.
  Miss Widdecombe: I voted Conservative, as did my mother.
  Simon Hughes: The right hon. Lady tells me that both she and her good mother voted Conservative. I felt like saying, "You may know what you did, but I am sure that even if your mother did not vote Conservative she would not have told you." I welcome back the right hon. Lady; we should be grateful that, none the less, in this place she has always pursued Home Office matters with vigour, proper concern and integrity—qualities that unite the three major parties. We seek to contribute to these debates on the basis of what we believe is right for the country. I hope that in this Parliament we shall serve the country well.
  Mr. Bercow: While we are on the subject of previous Ministers and are going through proper courtesies, will the hon. Gentleman take the opportunity to join me in saying that the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien), whatever disagreements we might have had with him, was an exceptionally assiduous Minister, was unfailingly courteous and that many of us will miss him? We should be nice to the hon. Member for North Warwickshire but, if the Government are wise, they too should be nice to him.
  Simon Hughes: I endorse that remark unreservedly and also pay tribute to the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien). As a final prefatory remark, I pay tribute to Jackie Ballard, who represented Taunton in the previous Parliament. Because of a few hundred votes, she cannot be with us today, but she served in our Home Office team with conviction and commitment. Many of us will miss her greatly. My hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) was rather more blessed by the electorate and now has a huge majority; he has joined our Home Office team, and we welcome him warmly. In addition, my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and—
  Mr. John Burnett: Torridge and West Devon.
  Simon Hughes: A Freudian slip—I apologise hugely and immediately. My hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett) is here again to make sure that legal affairs are looked after properly by Liberal Democrat Members.
  Liberal Democrats share with the Government what appear to be some central Home Office commitments: preventing crime, especially violent crime; increasing the detection rate, which is still abysmally low in England and Wales—25 per cent. on average; building safer communities; and clamping down on thuggish behaviour.

  665
  There is no real dispute between us on those commitments but, in this Parliament, more so than in the previous one, we must have polices that do not just sound tough on crime, but are much more effective in dealing with the causes of crimes.
  As events in Bradford, Burnley, Leeds, Oldham and other places have shown, many of our urban and other areas have a legacy of inadequate education, an inadequate youth service and poor training and employment prospects. There is huge disaffection and a great lack of skills and self-worth among youngsters and many of their families. Members on both sides of the House will agree that those problems and a sense of alienation do not ever justify crime and violence, but they often explain it. When one adds the abuse of solvents, drugs and alcohol, there is a ready cocktail that we ignore at our peril.
  In our society, it is far too acceptable that people will be verbally and physically abusive; it is far too acceptable that they will resort to knives and firearms; and it is far too acceptable that, when punished for wrongdoing, they sometimes go into custody, but come out hardly rehabilitated at all and highly likely to reoffend within a short period. The press release issued by the Home Office when the Home Secretary visited Croydon the other day stated that key among his objectives were the three Ds—delivery, delivery and delivery. That is what the country wants from the Government's second term; in many respects, they need to do better than the Home Office did in the last four years. Crime must go down, police numbers must go up and the statistics must be accurate and honest about not only such things but everything else.
  If I may say so gently, I am glad that, in spite of the trailers that the Home Secretary put out before he took up his job, his speech today indicated that he is more concerned about being effective in dealing with the causes of crime and dealing with crime, and will leave aside any desire principally to get a reputation for being, as he said, much less liberal than his predecessor.
  Mr. Blunkett: I did not say that.
  Simon Hughes: Well, if the right hon. Gentleman did not, I am glad; that is another reassurance.
  In the previous Parliament, there were two types of Home Office policy—some good, sound and well thought-out policy, which we supported, but far too many soundbites, gimmicks and short-term solutions that were never going to work. I hope that there can be a self-denying ordinance about those and that they can be left behind because, invariably, they raised expectations but often failed abysmally.
  I understand that the Lord Chancellor's Department is to take on additional responsibilities that previously lay with the Home Office. We will work well and constructively with the Lord Chancellor and his colleagues on the human rights, freedom of information and data protection agenda, but that is no substitute for a modern Government department of justice. It is no substitute for a minister of justice, accountable to elected representatives and working with the Home Secretary on matters involving courts and related issues. I hope that the Government have not stopped their reform of Departments with their announcement at the beginning of this Parliament. We will seek to persuade them that if we
  666
  are to have a modern criminal justice system we need a modern structure and a Government Department to manage it. That reform has been far too long delayed.
  Events of the past few weeks have highlighted the causes of crime around the country in places that we have all noted. We all share that concern. I have talked to people in each of the affected communities and I am aware of the way in which a single event can trigger a series of other incidents that can easily get out of hand. I hope that the lesson is always that we must seek to build and strengthen communities and to avoid stereotypes.
  It seems to me that three fundamental concerns must be addressed, the first of which is inequality in our country. For as long as the likelihood of unemployment is so much higher in certain places, wards and communities, they are bound to have more problems. I was talking today to a friend in Harehills in Leeds, where because many youngsters have no expectation of success there is no reason for them to be restrained in their behaviour. The Home Secretary and I both represent inner-city constituencies and we know the score: the very rich live not far away from the very poor and disadvantaged. Unless we deal with that issue of inequality, many crimes of disaffection will continue.
  Secondly, we need to deal with two of the fundamental causes of crime: drugs and alcohol. I hope that the Home Secretary and the Government will consider the idea of drugs courts. I am encouraged by the Home Secretary's response to the Metropolitan police policy that has been piloted in Lambeth. It is a pity that his predecessors did not agree to the proposal that we should have a standing body—it need not be called a royal commission—to advise on drugs policy in respect of all drugs, legal and illegal, including alcohol and solvents. If that proposal had been accepted some years ago, perhaps we would by now have had a report and further intelligent proposals. Drugs laws, whatever we may think about them, are clearly not working, and nor are the licensing laws. That makes it more likely that people will exploit and abuse drugs and alcohol.
  Mr. Tony Banks: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point about the war against drugs, which is clearly not being won. The royal commission is an excellent proposal from the Liberal Democrats. What is his own personal position on the decriminalisation of cannabis, and perhaps other drugs too?
  Simon Hughes: I am happy to answer that, although I do not want to be distracted into that debate because my party has commissioned work, which is under way, to look at the Police Foundation report and its 80-odd proposals. My position is that we have to make sure that that work is presented to our party in the next few months. I hope that it will be a positive contribution to the debate in the House. The evidence is not overwhelmingly on one side, but I am absolutely clear that taking people to court for possession of recreational drugs rather than using police time to pursue the dealers, to whom the Home Secretary rightly referred, is a complete reversal of proper priorities, is against the interests of the police and the community and can alienate many individuals and communities. I am resisting the temptation to go further, not least because I am involved in the internal debate and we will shortly make proposals that I hope will help the debate in the House.

  667
  Thirdly, the Home Secretary is very alert to the issue of increasing racist activity in some parts of England and Wales and undoubtedly in other parts of the United Kingdom. In my constituency, as in others, right-wing groups have been seeking to be more active and peddle blatantly racist language and allegiance. Such activity has a harmful direct and indirect effect on those communities.
  There is a dilemma for those who, like some other hon. Members and me, are liberal by nature in allowing free speech. I have always defended people's right to put their case, but people should be prosecuted when they use language, orally or in writing, that is clearly intended to incite racial hatred. Prosecutions do not always follow such language. Quite often, many people using such language are not prosecuted. Unless we have the security of knowing that people will be prosecuted when they break the law, the law is being taken for a ride and many communities will be hugely and dangerously disadvantaged.
  Marches are another issue that I shall raise in my first or in another early meeting with the Home Secretary. The law is quite right in providing that marches should be banned only when there has been a proper consideration process and police take the view that they cannot manage them, but as right-wing groups seem to be able to stage one march after another, disrupting communities, increasing pressure and indirectly causing violent offences, we may have to re-examine public order legislation. Some freedoms are being abused by people with no interest other than causing harm to other communities. Such activities are doing no good in many of our urban areas and elsewhere and the legislation may need to be changed.
  The Queen's Speech contains four Home Office Bills in addition to a draft Bill and two constitutional Bills that will be coming from elsewhere in the Government machine and have the involvement of the new Leader of the House, whom we welcome. Although only four Home Office Bills were trailed, a fifth has already been published. The Home Office is therefore living up to its usual reputation of promising much and delivering even more, even if it is not always quite what we would have wanted.
  Mr. Bercow: The input is high, but the output is not.
  Simon Hughes:Yes.
  I realise that dealing with such a flood of legislation is very tough on civil servants, to whom I pay tribute. I was therefore encouraged and very positive about the Home Secretary's proposal, following that of his predecessor, that we should consider codifying the criminal justice system and the criminal law and seek to establish a permanent system, rather than consider a new criminal justice Bill every year, apparently to little effect.
  The Home Secretary rightly said that in this Session we shall have the Halliday report on sentencing and Lord Justice Auld's report on the criminal justice system, both of which are welcome. Both reports, and the related legislation, merit very careful consideration. They should both first be put in the public domain so that a public response can be elicited and we can ensure, as the Home Secretary said, that the broadest possible consensus is
  668
  reached. Ideally, the legislation flowing from both reports should be considered in one or both Houses in a Special Standing Committee so that evidence can be taken and we can best consider how the proposals might operate.
  I have one linked rather bold suggestion. I believe that it would be better if both those Bills, both of which are necessary, were considered in draft form in this Session and considered substantively in the next Session. Therefore, both the criminal courts reform Bill and the sentencing and criminal justice Bill should be consulted on this year and enshrined in legislation only later. The purpose of waiting is not to prevaricate or delay, but to ensure that we get it right rather than repent at leisure.
  I hope that the three main parties agree that victims' entitlements should be the centrepiece of that legislation. I also hope that Liberal Democrat Members will persuade the Home Secretary that victims should be able not only to make a written statement to the court but, after conviction, to make an oral statement to the judge as well. Such a provision might be controversial, but I believe that it is hugely important to victims or their families.
  I also hope that we will increase our efforts to ensure that our prisons and penal system work far more effectively. The Home Secretary knows well that, as the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald said, the prison system will not work properly until prison working days are truly working days; effective treatment for drug, alcohol or sex abuse and anger management are available; everyone who goes into prison is prepared for their release, which certainly does not happen now; and everyone released from prison receives continuing treatment and support.
  I want to add a few words on the subject of the controversy of the past few days, about which there has been considerable agreement among the three parties. Our views on the right sentence for Thompson and Venables might have differed, but we are all of the same view that the killing of James Bulger was the most ghastly killing and we understand the anger, frustration, sense of loss and aloneness of his family.
  Liberal Democrats have, however, taken the view that it is right that judges and the parole board, and not politicians, set sentences. The sentence has been set and those two young men will now be released.
  It is highly important that we accept the courts and the rule of law and that those young men—who, as the Home Secretary rightly said, will be at the risk of being recalled for the whole of their lives—are allowed to start to repay something to society to make up for the terrible thing that they did eight years ago when they were of primary school age. I understand the difficulty in drawing the line, but the penal system is about punishing and then starting again; it is about rehabilitation and restoration. Nobody is beyond that new start in our criminal justice system and we must say that to everybody, loud and clear.
  There will be a debate between hon. Members about civil liberties, although I hope that we can reach as much agreement as possible. On behalf of my party, I continue to express great concern that there might be an attempt to take away the right to choose jury trial. We think that that is a misplaced proposal that is not based on the evidence; it is not a necessary part of the criminal justice reforms.
  Introducing more evidence of previous convictions is, in general terms, a bad and wrong thing to do in the criminal justice system. How can someone be tried fairly

  669
  for the offence with which they are charged if people know that they may have committed that offence or something like it before? Everyone will appreciate that that must normally prejudice a fair trial.
  Another difficult issue is double jeopardy, any change to which could result in a change to many lifetimes of tradition. If the Government seek to change the law, they must proceed carefully, as we are dealing with the rights of people who have been tried and acquitted and who have been able to presume that they will not be tried again.
  The criminal justice system must have the confidence of all the people, but we must be careful not to think that reducing the liberties of the defendant is not reducing the liberty of everybody. For example, someone who may have been a victim over the weekend in Burnley might be a defendant in a court case in Burnley in a few weeks' time. Liberties cannot be broken up like that. We do not enhance the liberty of a victim, or of any other citizen, by taking away their rights when they appear in front of a court charged with something of which they may be just as innocent as anybody else.
  In that context, juries and lay magistrates play a significant part. They are ordinary people, playing a part in the criminal justice system. We disconnect ordinary people from the criminal justice system at our peril—the same applies if we disconnect young people from their communities—because another part of society becomes one that they do not own any more. I hope that we will resist moves to whittle down the rights of ordinary citizens to do their duty in the criminal justice system, which many of them have done, to our great benefit, over many years.
  We must act better to acquire the proceeds of crime, on which I share the Home Secretary's objective. There are, none the less, difficult civil liberties and human rights issues and we will want to look at the matter very fully. We must ensure that we seek first a criminal conviction as a preliminary to acquiring any proceeds. Only if that cannot be achieved should we go down the route of acquiring on the basis of the balance of probabilities.
  The House will consider an order under the Football (Disorder) Act 2000 before the summer recess. Being a veteran of last year's debate on the subject, I understood that before an order was introduced and the provisions of the Act extended we would see a report on its working. We have had the working party report, but no report on the Act has been laid before the House. I remind the Home Secretary that if he wants to persuade us to renew the Act he must first produce the right documents and evidence.
  Mr. John Hayes: In a long, thoughtful, thorough and wide-ranging speech, the hon. Gentleman has yet to mention punishment. Given the righteous indignation and anger that he says victims feel, should not the criminal justice be retributive, at least in part? Not every criminal is a sick person in need of treatment or, as the hon. Gentleman puts it, anger management. Does he agree that some criminals are people who have made selfish, greedy and violent choices, and that they should be punished?
  Simon Hughes: Of course I agree that people must be punished. Retribution is not normally the reason for the measures taken by the criminal justice system.
  670
  Occasionally, courts pass sentences that are meant to set an example, and rightly so. People should be punished when they do wrong, and I understand why some people might reasonably think that the sentences in the Bulger case may not have been punishment enough. My point is that when punishment ends, rehabilitation must continue, and we must then seek always to wipe the slate clean.
  I want to pay tribute to the police. They are extremely important and, by and large, they do a good job. The country wants more of them, and tomorrow the Home Secretary may even announce that the numbers are beginning to pick up again. That is not before time. In the previous Parliament, the Labour party did badly by the police and the country on this matter: there were fewer, rather than more, police on the beat; morale went down rather than up, and more officers left the force than ever before. Although there was continual talk about reforming police pensions, nothing happened. The police often told me, as they will have told the Home Secretary's predecessor, that they felt that the Government were being tougher on them than on the criminals. There is a summary view about what we need to do for the police. The Government and the country need to do better.
  The need is not only one of having more police. I hope that the Home Secretary will be positive about our idea of having part-time, paid police, so that we can employ those who cannot do a full-time job or who are coming up to retirement. I hope that he will consider introducing community safety forces, employed by local councils as a supplement to, and support for, the police. I hope also that the Government will be positive about the idea, endorsed by chief police officers and others, of having a standing conference on the police. There could then be regular public debate between police officers of all ranks, the Government, politicians, police authority members and others, and a regular assessment of what is needed for better recruitment and retention, including factors such as pay.
  We welcome the proposal for an independent Police Complaints Authority, which is long overdue. I hope that the Home Secretary will revisit his predecessor's refusal to hold an inquiry into deaths in custody. I also share the view expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes and others that as long as we have independent police authorities and forces in England, the authorities, rather than the Home Secretary, however strong his feelings, should choose their chief constable and decide when he should leave.
  I welcome the Home Secretary's moderate tone on asylum and immigration. I look forward to the removal of the voucher system, which is not only discriminatory and extremely offensive but more expensive than putting people on benefits.
  There was another omission in the Queen's Speech. The Home Secretary's predecessor promised equality legislation to deal particularly with the fact that we do not have religious equality in this country. Members of several faith groups, especially the Muslim community, are urgently waiting for that. Liberal Democrats believe that as soon as we get equality legislation, to deal not only with that but with civil partnerships and the repeal of section 28, among other things, we will have a fairer society.
  Two Bills will focus on constitutional reform: one of them will increase the number of women in the House, and the other will reform the House of Lords to make it a

  671
  more representative second Chamber. Liberal Democrats support both Bills, as far as they go, but we strongly believe that we must seize this opportunity to look at what both Houses do and how they relate to each other. We must also look at how people get to Parliament. Unless we do that, the danger is that reform will not go far enough, and that the public will not be engaged in the democratic process nearly enough.
  Increasingly, people find what we do a turn-off. The statistics are sad and disappointing. The House has become unrepresentative, and that is sad too. It is not just that there are too few female, black or Asian Members but that there are only a few young people in the House and very few older people. Parliament does not look or sound like Britain.
  Turnout at the election was very low. In Liverpool, Riverside, which was regarded as a safe seat, turnout was as low as one third of the electorate, although in the much less safe seats of Winchester or North Norfolk it was higher than 70 per cent. Those figures hint at the direction that must be taken.
  There will soon be a new leader of the Conservative party, and the new Labour Government are already in office. I hope that, in the interests of democracy, all parties in the House will look seriously—and soon—at the need to reform political representation in this country. The Tories won no seats in west Yorkshire, south Yorkshire and Wales, even though they received 30 per cent, of the vote or similar in those areas: something is badly wrong.
  People are being deprived of their say. In Surrey, 20 per cent, of the electorate voted Labour but they have no representatives. In Kent, 20 per cent, of the electorate voted Liberal Democrat but they have no representatives.
  Mr. Banks: How did we all get here then?
  Simon Hughes: I can tell the hon. Gentleman that we all got here by the strange and funny system that we inherited a long time ago.
  We need a system in which the balance of background and gender is correct but which allows people to get what they vote for as well. The constituency of Tatton was represented by Martin Bell in the previous Parliament, and he was respected because he said, "A plague on all your houses. The system is not up to the job." The hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Dr. Taylor) was elected because people are increasingly moving away from the political parties rather than towards us.
  Parliament must be more representative. The power of Back Benchers must grow, rather than diminish. The power of the Whips must diminish, not grow. All hon. Members must have increased power to hold the Government to account. Unless such fundamental change is introduced, the danger is that democracy will become a minority activity. In such circumstances, discussion about the contents of programmes outlined in Gracious Speeches to come will matter less and less to more and more of our fellow citizens.
  If the Government are to be remembered for significant progress and reform, they will have to be much braver and more effective about the Home Office agenda and constitutional reform. The country is waiting for that
  672
  radical approach. Liberal Democrats will support the Government if they are willing to be brave, but we will be extremely critical if they become as conservative as they have been for the past four years.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): Order. I remind the House that Mr. Speaker has imposed a 10-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches.
  5.24 pm
  Mr. Frank Dobson: I begin by congratulating my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on his appointment. He has a hard task before him in following the work done by his predecessor, our joint right hon. Friend the new Foreign Secretary. However, I am sure that the new incumbent is up to the job.
  I know that a lot of new hon. Members will make speeches about their constituencies, so I shall confine my remarks to what is happening in my area now.
  Twenty-two years ago, when I made my maiden speech, I did not mention the problems of crime, drugs and outlandish, loutish behaviour because they were not particularly significant in my inner-city seat. They certainly are today, however, and the situation is, quite frankly, out of hand. The drugs problem used to be confined principally to the Kings Cross part of my constituency. It is still in Kings Cross, despite everyone's efforts, but it has spread right across the constituency and, indeed, across central London as a whole.
  Parts of the area that I try to represent sometimes feel like an outdoor supermarket, dominated by street drug traders. They make my constituents feel threatened and alienated on the very streets where they live. People talk about civil liberties, but I am willing to take away a lot of drug pushers' and drug possessors' civil liberties if they are going to take away the civil liberties of my constituents, who are entitled to the quiet enjoyment of their homes and streets. Old people and toddlers are faced with used needles on doorsteps, needles thrown down in children's playgrounds, put in window boxes or in flower beds. People are no longer threatened at the point of a gun but at the point of a used syringe. Recently, a woman was robbed at the point of a used syringe and, one of my local doctors tells me, then stabbed with it. Now she is awaiting the results of a blood test to see whether she has HIV. That sort of behaviour is going on within about half a mile of where I am standing. It is wrong, and we must take stronger measures to deal with it.
  All sorts of security measures have been introduced. People are turning their homes, blocks and flats into fortresses. In one block in my area, a notice went up only a couple of days ago saying that used heroin syringes had been found on the fire escape of the stairwell on the second floor and that, as they can be dangerous, the estate manager or caretaker should be contacted to dispose of them immediately. Gangs of lads are using heroin and cannabis inside the block of flats.
  People are entitled not to live in those conditions, and we are letting them down. I do not blame the local police, who put in a huge effort. Special operations include Operation Welwyn, which has been going on in Kings

  673
  Cross for a long time, and Operation Regis, which has been carried out in the Kings Cross area recently with special funding from the Government.
  There is an element of displacement: when short-term attacks are made on drug takers in a particular area, they get displaced to other areas. However, it is not just a question of displacement; it is going on all over my area. A new operation covering part of" Soho, Covent Garden and the Bloomsbury part of my constituency—Operation Lilac—is working fairly well. It involves the health service. People are faced with prosecution or with being helped to overcome their habit. That is a good special effort, but there is displacement. The trouble with all these special efforts is that they are short term: when they come to an end, the problem arises again.
  The police tell me—the figures bear this out—that they are attempting to concentrate their action on the dealers rather than the people in possession. They are finding it difficult because some of the dealers and those with whom they deal are now so familiar with one another that the dealers will sell only to people they know to be their usual customers. Even police in plain clothes are finding it difficult to get the dealers.
  I am, admittedly, extremely reactionary on the subject of drugs. I think that we should contemplate introducing a concept of aggravated possession. If people are in an area where drug dealing is known to go on but do not live or work there, if they are in possession of drugs but are not registered addicts and are not trying to get treatment, I think that they move into a different category and should be treated as such. We must stop both the dealers and the people with whom they deal.
  We certainly need more police and, at last, recruitment is going up, but the Metropolitan police force is wasting a huge amount of time. I shall give two or three examples. Half of the 999 calls made to the Metropolitan police are not serious. To the best of my knowledge, no one has been prosecuted for making any of the 1.2 million hoax calls that were made in the past year.
  In the last year for which figures are available, 80 per cent, of burglar alarms—I refer not to those that go off and keep people awake at night, but to the ones that ring in police stations and to which the police have to and do respond—to which the Metropolian police responded were false alarms. If some batty old lady kept ringing them up and it was a false alarm, the police would prosecute her for wasting police time. Those alarms are a systematic waste of police time and the management of the Metropolitan police should pay more attention to the problem.
  We need more money and recruits. The Metropolitan police certainly need to speed up their recruitment process and to shorten the period between someone's application to join and when they become a working policeman or woman.
  We also need other measures that do not relate directly to the police. Known drug dealers operate out of individual flats in blocks. Under the present law, it takes months to get them out. The system is so slow that it makes a two-toed sloth seem hyperactive. It is useless. The council and the police do not have the necessary powers. Dealers are making people's lives a misery for months on end. More rapid attention must be paid to them and to getting them out.
  674
  The other major problem in my area is the significant increase in the amount of plain loutish behaviour. It is also a characteristic over the boundary in Westminster, as my former right hon. colleague, who is shortly to become Lord Brooke, would agree. The west end on a Friday and Saturday night is full of a lot of drunken people being particularly obnoxious.
  The police have not told me this, but I am fearful that, with about 150,000 half-drunk people roaming the streets at 11 pm or midnight, some minor incident will turn into a huge riot with a lot of drunks beating each other up and having a right old go throughout the area. We must pay attention to that loutish behaviour—it is a powder keg.
  I welcome the postponement of the Bill to introduce 24-hour boozing and the 24-hour city. It may be possible to allow that, but we must have nuisance laws in place in parallel, so that when places become sources of disorder and nuisance the police can close them down there and then and people do not have to resort to the courts and face months of delay to end the ruination to their lives.
  I am sorry to have to make this speech; I am sorry that the situation exists. People in my area have never been so sickened by the amount of crime and the loutish behaviour and drug taking. I am confident that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will want to do something about it and will do something.
  5.34 pm
  Mr. Edward Leigh: Like the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), it is a little while since I gave my maiden speech—18 years ago, not 22 as in his case. Like him, I did not mention the problems of crime and disorder.
  I devoted my maiden speech to defence. It is a tribute to the previous Conservative Government that defence is now so much on the back burner. Thanks to the robust policies followed by previous Conservative Prime Ministers, we have successfully dealt with that threat. However, we still face the threat posed to our cities and rural areas by lawlessness. I want to say a little about that later.
  Everyone who loves this place should be very concerned indeed about the appallingly low turnout in the general election and should be asking themselves why people apparently have so little faith in the democratic process. One reason is that politicians, even those armed with very large majorities, appear to lack the courage of their convictions, and I am disappointed that the Government, who have already been in power for four years and now have an enormous majority, have produced a Queen's Speech that is so lacking in radical cutting edge. I should like to say a few words about that.
  Above all, we need Governments who believe in justice, in telling the truth and in reaching a decision and putting that decision fairly to the British people. In their handling of two subjects—the constitution and Europe—the Government show a lack of justice, a lack of firmness and a lack of conviction.
  On the constitution, devolution is now in place and, although we have argued about the West Lothian question for four years, there is still no answer. Our English constituents are still faced with the fact that Scottish MPs vote on our health, education, policing, agriculture, transport, housing policy and much else, whereas we have no say on Scottish matters. We should point that out again and again because it is a denial of natural justice.

  675
  Over the years, many solutions have been proposed. There is the federal solution, advocated by the Liberal party; and there is the solution advocated by my right hon. Friends on the Front Bench, and which I favour—that Scottish Members should not be allowed to vote on exclusively English matters. But it is a matter of justice, and it must be dealt with. The Government cannot ignore it.
  On reform of the House of Lords, we are still waiting for a definitive answer to the question of what will happen to the second Chamber. In a democracy, one cannot have a situation where half the legislature is entirely appointed; it does not work. Something must be done. I personally favour an elected House of Lords. I believe that the House of Lords must be based on the traditional counties. If we are to retain an appointed element, the appointed element can no longer be appointed by the Prime Minister. In a modern democracy, people will not accept that so much patronage over the legislature is given to the head of the Executive.
  On Europe, too, people are crying out for conviction politics and for guidance from the Government. We cannot continue with the policy of "wait and see" on the euro. It is bad for the constitution, for business and for our country, and it is incumbent on the Government to reach a conclusion on that. I see no reason why there should not be a referendum within the next two years. Let us decide the question once and for all.
  My personal view is absolutely clear: I am opposed, on constitutional grounds, in principle, to the scrapping of the pound. I would put that view—I am happy to do so, as are many of my colleagues—to the British people. The Government cannot continue to play around with this issue. Let us have a referendum—let us sort this out once and for all and move on to other things. Let us then try to base our relationship with the European Union on an element of honesty.
  Everyone else in Europe is perfectly honest about their aims; there is no doubt about that. I am happy to remain in a European Union that concentrates on trade matters, environmental protection and good relations between nation states. I cannot accept the Europe that seeks to control our foreign and defence policy, our currency, our taxation, our justice and immigration. I believe that the point of view that I am advancing is rational and should be debated. Let us have the referendum now and get this issue out of the way. Everyone else in Europe apparently knows their mind. Why is it only in this country that the Executive are incapable of giving clear guidance to the people?
  Let me pass on quickly to home affairs. Why are people so disillusioned? They are disillusioned because, every year, we have a new criminal justice system and, every year, it appears to make so little difference on the ground. What do people want from their chief constables? They want visible policing. Despite the fact that we have put so much pressure on the Government, why is the number of special constables still in catastrophic decline?
  I agree that we cannot afford to employ as many regular policemen as we would like, so why do we not pay special constables? Many people are anxious and willing to give of their free time to the public, so let us get them back into the villages and on to the streets. The people are
  676
  crying out for visible policing. They are not crying out for yet another criminal justice system; they want to see policemen.
  Before I finish my speech, let me say one or two things about the public services. There is enormous dissatisfaction with the public services and, again, there is a lack of honesty about what is going on in them.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is going wide of the amendment that is being debated today in referring to the public services.
  Mr. Leigh:I understand that one is entitled to range over all the matters in the Queen's Speech
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. There is an amendment, tabled by Her Majesty's Opposition, on today's Order Paper.
  Mr. Leigh: Well, I am sorry that I have to be constrained by the Liberal Democrat amendment. I was under the impression that one was entitled to range over many matters.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. We are debating the amendment tabled by the Conservative party.
  Sir Patrick Cormack: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am very reluctant to challenge your ruling, but Mr. Speaker made it plain this afternoon that the House will vote on the Liberal Democrat amendment, so surely it is permissible to speak about any subject dealt with in that amendment.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: I must advise the hon. Gentleman that the debate is on the amendment that has been selected by Mr. Speaker, and that curtails debate.
  Mr. Alex Salmond: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. This is a serious point. Mr. Speaker has selected the Liberal Democrat amendment for a Division. That amendment most certainly touches on public services, so it would be extraordinary if we were not allowed to debate an amendment on which we shall vote just after 10 o'clock.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: I advise the hon. Gentleman that the Liberal Democrat amendment has been selected for a Division, but not for debate.
  Mr. Leigh: If I am not allowed to talk about issues of importance to the public, it is a sad reflection on how we order our affairs. I believe that we need to reform the procedures of the House and to ensure that Select Committees are strengthened, and I support what the Liberal Democrats are trying to achieve in that respect. It is important that we try to strengthen the role of Back Benchers in our affairs and that the Government should produce clear policies that the people understand. We are not being honest in the way in which we address the great issues of the day, especially health and education. People care about those issues, and we are not meeting their aspirations. The way in which our proceedings are conducted in the House is not meeting those aspirations. We are not having an honest debate.

  677
  Surely people want to ensure that an operation is available when they fall ill. They ask us why they should contribute all their lives to the national health service if operations are not available to them when they reach a certain age. They ask why they have to pay twice: they pay through taxation for operations, which are either denied to them, or they are told that they must wait two or three years; and they have to pay again through the private sector.
  A lot of work is being done on such matters—for example, by the Institute of Directors—and there are interesting and radical ideas. For example, if people are denied an operation, the state should give them a credit towards a private operation, so that the difference between the private and the public sectors would be blurred.
  We need to consider similar ideas in education. If people do not receive the state education that they believe is their right as taxpayers and prefer to use private education, the state should provide a credit towards it. Those are interesting and radical ideas. To give them credit, in their proposed education Bill, the Government are starting to break down the barriers between the private and public sector in education, which we are debating in this Queen's Speech debate. They have already done it in health with their concordat. Why can we not have an honest debate? Why do we have this rigid divide?
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman's time is up.
  Sir Patrick Cormack: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Would you be kind enough to clarify the ruling that you gave earlier? It has always been the convention of the House that, in the debate on the Queen's Speech, it is permissible to discuss any subject in the Queen's Speech on any day, even though certain days are earmarked for certain subjects. I have never known of a Member being prevented from touching on other subjects in the Queen's speech. As your ruling affects every hon. Member, wherever he or she sits, I should be grateful to know whether you have changed that age-old practice.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: I reiterate that we have today, as we had yesterday, a particular amendment on the Order Paper. Therefore, we are debating that amendment. Incidental reference to other aspects of the Queen's Speech is acceptable.
  5.46 pm
  Mr. Chris Mullin: I welcome my right hon. and hon. Friends to their new positions and look forward to working with them. It is good to be back among my friends on the Back Benches. I enjoyed my visit to the foothills of government, but after two years as the lowest form of ministerial life, I concluded rightly or wrongly that I would be of more use to my constituents, the Labour party and the human race in general if I returned to the Back Benches and, I hope, to the world of Select Committees. I hope that my experience in government will make me a more effective scrutineer of the Executive.
  I shall start with a couple of general points. For the avoidance of doubt and to avoid being listed among the disappointed, may I say that I am broadly content with the general direction of Government policy? I shall not,
  678
  therefore, unlike other refugees from government, be offering my thoughts exclusively to the Daily Mail and The Daily Telegraph. Of course, were I Prime Minister, which by some inexplicable oversight I am not, I would do one or two things differently. I hope that this Parliament will see a little less managerialitis, fewer targets, fewer initiatives, less spinning and an end to naming and shaming. We should accept that some degree of initiative must be permitted at local level, recognising at the same time that there must be a role for the Government in making sure that certain core services are delivered.
  On public services—which I refer to in passing—we must avoid talking ourselves into a depression. Yes, they are under strain as the result of years of underinvestment. Yes, they need better management and more resources. But to use expressions such as "third world", which I have seen occasionally, is hysterical nonsense, and we should not pander to it.
  For most of our constituents, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) graphically illustrated, the main problem is not organised crime but disorganised crime. Reversing the rising tide of yob culture is one of the greatest challenges that the Government face. It is the single greatest issue in parts of my constituency, as it is in his. I am sure that it is also the biggest issue in the constituencies of other hon. Members, especially those who represent poorer parts of the country.
  Many of my constituents are plagued by out-of-control youths and yob neighbours, against whom the law appears powerless. All too often, bad behaviour goes unchallenged. It does not bring consequences to anyone but the victim. People come to my surgeries shaking with fear, and all too often I end up evacuating the victim rather than the villain.
  Effective policing and an effective criminal justice system are a precondition of regeneration. It is no use pouring money into the most devastated parts of our inner cities if some of our citizens are tearing them down as fast as we can rebuild. Despite the undoubted progress of recent years, it remains a sad fact that our criminal justice system is wholly inadequate to protect us against persistent young offenders. Many are being repeatedly bailed, walking out of the court door and resuming their activities within hours. They are laughing at us.
  We must recognise that some youths are too badly damaged to be capable of reform and they are causing mayhem. Our priority must be to give their victims a rest from their activities, if necessary by locking them up. That is the harsh reality and I do not shrink from it. Successive Home Secretaries have promised more secure detention places for juveniles, but delivery has been slow. I hope that this will be speeded up. In the meantime, we must concentrate our efforts on helping younger children to grow up and lead useful lives, in the hope that they will not disappear down the same plughole as some of their older brethren.
  The Home Secretary will come under pressure to pour more resources into policing without paying too much attention to how effectively it is spent. I hope that he will resist that temptation. The first requirement is to obtain value for the very large sums that are already invested in policing. As he will know, there are extremely wide variations in the quality and management of policing as between one force and another. In Sunderland, I am glad to

  679
  say, it has improved immeasurably in recent years. I look forward to the police Bill, which will contain measures to improve discipline and complaints procedures, some of which were proposed in the Select Committee report that was produced under my chairmanship three years ago.
  Details of the crime Bill are a little sketchy, but I have a suggestion: one aspect of the yob culture which urgently needs addressing is the number of out-of-control youths with air weapons. No week passes without some new horror story. Last week, for example, a youth in Cardiff shot and injured four children in a school playground. It is incredible that no licence is required for an air weapon and that anyone over 14 can own one. It is necessary urgently to reduce the number of air weapons in circulation, and the crime Bill is an obvious opportunity to do that. Once again, the Home Secretary will find that there is a helpful Select Committee report on the stocks. I urge him to dust it down.
  Drugs lie behind a great deal of crime and the ruin of many young lives. My right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras graphically illustrated the problem. Enormous efforts have gone into combating the drug culture and I do not seek to denigrate them. I wonder, however, whether we are having a serious impact. Perhaps the time has come to consider a new approach.
  The Home Secretary will have seen a recent series of articles in The Guardian by Mr. Nick Davies. I know that he is not my right hon. Friend's favourite journalist, but I hope he will agree that Mr. Davies has made some serious points that require equally serious examination. Legalisation is traditionally a subject on which politicians fear to tread. Let me hasten to add that I am not yet persuaded, but given that everything else has failed, I wonder whether the time has come to contemplate the unthinkable. That may well be something on which the Select Committee can be helpful.
  I hope that Select Committees will be functioning by the summer and I would welcome an assurance on that from my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. I hope also that he is considering ways in which Select Committees can be made more effective. He will have seen the recent report by the Hansard Society and the report by the Liaison Committee, "Shifting the Balance", which incidentally was brushed aside a little too hastily. I hope that my right hon. Friend, who has a reputation for radical thinking, will take them seriously.
  I also hope that hon. Members will take Select Committees seriously. We cannot expect Ministers to do that if we do not. The first rule for an effective Select Committee member is to turn up on time; the second is to keep one's backside on the seat throughout the sitting; the third is to ask concise, relevant questions, for which short training courses can be arranged if necessary. After that, we can have a discussion about powers and resources. For what it is worth, it is my view that the only hope of making Select Committees function effectively is to create an alternative career structure for Back-Bench Members; otherwise we are for ever destined to see the best and the brightest seduced away by office or the prospect of office.
  If we sometimes wonder why the House and our profession in general do not enjoy the public esteem that we believe we deserve, at least part of the solution lies in our own hands. We do not have to award the Government
  680
  a three-month holiday from scrutiny every summer; we do not have to ask lollipop questions; and we do not have to let the Executive select those whose job it is to scrutinise them. Those are things that we choose to do— and we can equally well choose not to.
  5.55 pm
  Mr. Henry Bellingham: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin). We worked together on various issues, especially Northern Ireland, and I was sorry when he decided to resign from the Front Bench. On a Government Bench that contained a number of junior Members who were faceless apparatchiks, he shone as being extremely capable and able.
  This is not a maiden speech, but a semi-retread speech. A proper retread speech is when one moves to another constituency. I am in a small and select group of two people who are quasi-retreads because we represent our former constituencies. It is, of course, an honour to be elected in the first place for one's home constituency, but to be re-elected is a substantial honour, and I feel humble about it. All new Conservative arrivals need to have some humility. They are part of a parliamentary party that is in opposition, and we have much to learn so that we can contribute constructively to our task.
  I pay tribute to my predecessor. I also pay tribute to his predecessor, because if he had not worked hard over the years, I would probably not be here today. My immediate predecessor, Dr. George Turner, was an effective representative for North-West Norfolk. He worked extremely hard in Parliament and the constituency. He dealt with a heavy case load and established an effective team in King's Lynn to deal with people's problems. It is sad for him that that learn is being dismantled. He must feel like I did four years ago and think that all his work has not been rewarded at the polling stations. That is what happens in politics; it is a rough trade. However, we must move on.
  I pay tribute to some of my predecessor's achievements. He worked hard to bring Ministers to King's Lynn. As a consequence, we received pledges on key local issues such as the Hardwick flyover at the junction of the A10 and A47, the regeneration of the Anglia Canners site in King's Lynn, and the Nar-Ouse regeneration area—the NORA scheme—which will greatly regenerate an area of King's Lynn that has been blighted for many years. He secured pledges from Ministers on those important projects and it will fall to me to ensure that they are honoured by the Government. I shall work as hard as possible to make sure that those promises are kept. As we got nearer the election—I am sure this was no coincidence—more and more Ministers came to the constituency and made more and more pledges, which I shall hold them to. That work must continue.
  King's Lynn is a great historic town. It has remarkable churches and extraordinarily beautiful Georgian buildings. However, it also suffers from the blight caused by the neglect of the areas that I mentioned and of the state of the high street. Anyone who goes into King's Lynn will be horrified at the number of empty shops, which generates a sense of depression and gloom. We have a strong local economy that has been built on the tradition of working hard for self-sufficiency, and on the

  681
  entrepreneurial drive of many small businesses. Although we have a thriving small-firm sector, we need more investment. I do not think we will get that unless something is done to sort out the high street and to implement the schemes that will regenerate it. We need to attract more business and engender more development. I shall work hard to achieve that, because I fear that all the regulations and burdens on small businesses mean that much of the spirit of wealth creation that has been built up in the past few years will start to suffer.
  King's Lynn is the centre of the constituency, but one does not have to travel far outside it to find truly stunning countryside. Inland from one of the most beautiful stretches of coastline in the country are many small villages, most of which I visited in the election campaign. I found genuine anger, frustration and isolation because of a Government who have forgotten and neglected rural communities.
  We are considering not only a crisis in agriculture. Many farmers in North-West Norfolk continue to keep stock, especially pigs. They live in daily fear of foot and mouth disease. The crisis is not confined to small post offices or lack of rural transport. There is a perception that the Government do not care about the rural communities. That was summed up by the Prime Minister's contribution to "Question Time" during the election campaign. He said that he did not care about votes in the rural communities. That is a small step from saying that he did not care about rural communities.
  Above all, those communities feel isolated and that the Administration are remote. What, according to the Gracious speech, will the Government do to help rural communities? Nothing whatsoever. There will be a Bill on hunting. During the election campaign, I met one voter who was anxious about hunting, but thousands who were worried about rural crime.
  Rural crime and the lack of a visible police presence in west Norfolk are a genuine problem. I pay tribute to the police officers who work tirelessly and do their best to provide policing on the ground. There are far too few, however, and their morale is low. They are worried about the extent of the burden of paperwork that is placed on them, and about bureaucracy and retention. Now is not the time to start tampering with police pay and conditions. Morale is low, and if the Government want to fulfil their promises on law and order, they must win the support and trust of the police. That also applies to health and education; they must win the trust of teachers, doctors and nurses in order to fulfil their promises.
  People mentioned the Tony Martin case during the election campaign. It was a big issue in west Norfolk. Many people believe that Tony Mai tin was the victim of a crime. Many others believe that we cannot make law on the basis of one tragic, unfortunate case. But consulting one of the burglars who broke into Tony Martin's house on the length of the latter's sentence represents an unfortunate state of affairs which the Government should urgently examine.
  Police morale can be improved I am pleased that more police officers will be appointed in Norfolk. The Government make great play of the extra numbers, but as my right hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary pointed out, they have let the numbers fall. We are considering 100 extra police officers in Norfolk, but why were
  682
  numbers allowed to fall by 50 between 1997 and 2000? Only now are the Government making up for the harm that they did.
  If the Government are to fulfil their promises, they must tackle morale in the caring services. I am worried by the fact that the previous Home Secretary was slow-handclapped at the Police Federation conference. I am worried that doctors are tabling motions about contracting out national health service contracts. I am concerned that teachers and university lecturers are threatening industrial action. The Government can promise what they like about the caring services, but they must carry the staff with them.
  I shall do all I can to ensure that the Government's promises are fulfilled in my constituency. Making sure that constituents get the best possible deal is the most important task of a Member of Parliament, especially a new Member. I shall be constructive, but extremely critical if the promises are not delivered in the next four years.
  6.4 pm
  Mr. Mike O'Brien: I am speaking from the Back Benches for the first time in seven years, and I have chosen the furthest Back Bench from which to do so. It has been a privilege to serve the Labour party and my constituents in North Warwickshire as a Minister for four years and a shadow Treasury spokesman before that. I thank my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister for appointing me; he showed great prescience and wisdom in doing so; I shall not comment on his decision not to reappoint me.
  I welcome the new Home Secretary and his team to the Front Bench. My right hon. Friend has a strong record on education and I am sure that he will be a great success in his current position.
  The Government are reforming and radical, and I have played a part in some of the reforms. I contributed to constitutional reform, including the Human Rights Act 1998, the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000. Those measures made important changes, and I want the Government to continue with a programme of radical reform.
  I shall speak about two issues: policing and public-private partnerships. The Gracious Speech was very good, and delivered on many of Labour's pre-election commitments, but I want to mention two measures that are not in the Gracious Speech. First, I wish to say that, like my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), I am broadly content with the direction of Government policy, but I may occasionally want to encourage it to move faster in some directions.
  I cannot help expressing disappointment that we did not move faster on licensing reform. I expected a Bill to be announced in the Gracious Speech. I have heard that the policy and the Bill have not been dropped and that they will be introduced as soon as parliamentary time allows. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Prisons, who is to reply to the debate, can confirm that that is the case. A draft Bill in the next year might help to deal with some of the detailed issues on licensing law, and I hope that it can be provided. Licensing reform should give

  683
  customers more choice, publicans more freedom, the police more power to deal with disorder, and residents a say. It is long overdue.
  Mr. Salmond: I want to put it on record that, although it may have been only a small part of his activities as a Home Office Minister, the hon. Gentleman dealt sensibly with the lack of competition in the racing industry. That was deeply appreciated by a range of people, including the new Leader of the House and myself.
  Mr. O'Brien: I am grateful for that comment.
  The amendment tabled by the Liberal Democrats refers to the lack of a Bill on a referendum on the euro. The Government are right not to rush forward with a Bill, although I am pleased that we shall move to ratify the Nice treaty. We need a careful and practical assessment of the economic tests for joining the euro before we introduce a Bill on the referendum. I welcome the recent speech of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, who said that we would make that assessment. I urge the Government to ignore the euro ideologists on both sides of the argument, the siren voices who urge immediate or no entry.
  We must beware the Conservative argument on the euro. Ideology has led the Conservatives to defeat in the election and into a policy cul de sac on the euro. The people of North Warwickshire want answers to the basic questions: what does joining the euro mean for their jobs, for interest rates and for economic prospects? That is why the Government are right on the question of referendums on the Nice treaty, to which the Opposition amendment refers, and the euro, to which the Liberal Democrat amendment refers. The Government's position on those issues is right—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): Order. The hon. Gentleman is straying rather wide of the mark. We are of course debating only the amendment tabled by the official Opposition.
  Mr. O'Brien: I am aware of that and I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for giving me that indication. I merely wanted to say that I thought that the Government's cautious attitude to including a Bill on such matters in the Gracious Speech was right.
  Mr. Salmond: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We have heard a speech in the past half hour dealing largely with the Government's failure to introduce such a measure. How on earth can it be wrong for the hon. Gentleman to express the opposite point of view?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have made my ruling.
  Mr. O'Brien: I will of course accept your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and move on. I had wanted to say something about ensuring that we did not repeat the mistakes that the Tories made on the exchange rate mechanism by entering the euro at the wrong time, for the wrong reasons and at the wrong rate, but I have heard your ruling and will move on.
  684
  The people in my constituency want the Government to deliver on public services and particularly on schools, the national health service and, importantly, policing. The public want a police force that is able to deal with the crimes that they face in their daily lives. Very often, they are not the crimes of armed robbery or murder, but antisocial and loutish behaviour and the problems of neighbours from hell who make others' lives a misery. Those are the issues with which my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) dealt as Home Secretary, and I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) will want to continue that agenda.
  The public also want more police officers on the beat. They will welcome proposals for police reform. When considering reforming the police, I hope that my right hon. Friend will consider the precise terms of the definition of the operational independence of chief constables, as set out in the Police and Magistrates' Courts Act 1994. Having more police reassures the public that the Government share their instincts and want to cut crime. Few other issues in the Home Office are more important.
  We have promised 6,000 extra officers in the current spending round, and police training centres are full, which is good news. The struggle to increase police numbers, however, has been a hard one. The Conservative Government spent more but got fewer police officers. Indeed, during the first two years of the Labour Government, we did much the same. One reason was that the 1994 Act gave operational independence to chief constables and abolished the requirement to maintain establishment levels. In other words, in conjunction with the police authority, chief constables decided how to spend resources.
  When chief constables received extra resources, they met their own, perfectly justifiable priorities, such as providing better equipment and training, new police stations and computers and civilian staff to release officers from desk jobs. So it is not a criticism of chief constables to say that they spent their resources in ways other than on extra officers. However, the fact was that police numbers fell and both Conservative and Labour politicians got the blame. The public wanted more police and they did not always get them.
  In recent years, the crime fighting fund has been a way round the legal problem of the definition in the 1994 Act of the operational independence of chief constables. Chief constables receive money from that fund only if they increase police numbers. The fund is essentially an artificial construct. What we really need is an amendment of the Act so that chief constables can in all other respects maintain their operational independence in day-to-day policing matters such as the distribution of resources and the deployment of police officers, but so that the public can get the increase in police numbers that they want and politicians can show that they can deliver what they were elected to do.
  Let me make it clear that no one wants politicians to interfere in the proper operational matters of the police. I would oppose doing so. However, on numbers, there is a case for either reintroducing an establishment figure or introducing a similar mechanism for each force that enables chief constables to increase or at least maintain the number of officers. In that way. the public can be reassured that police numbers are a priority. I very much

  685
  hope that we will be able to increase police numbers beyond the 6,000 proposed in the current spending review. On that issue, my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South and I part company.
  I should like to make a couple of other brief points. We need to find ways to increase the powers and status of the ordinary police constable on the beat, which have been eroded over the years. We need to ensure that our constituents are empowered to deal with antisocial behaviour, inservility and louts, rather than—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has had his 10 minutes.
  6.15 pm
  Dr. John Pugh: It is with some trepidation that I endeavour to make my first contribution in this House. There are two clear reasons why I am a little anxious. The first is the obvious pressure that afflicts those who follow an exalted predecessor. Members will be mindful of the fact that the previous Member of Parliament for Southport, Mr. Ronnie Fearn, will be a hard act to follow. I need no reminding of that.
  Members may not be aware, however, that there are some disturbing precedents when it comes to maiden speeches by Southport MPs. In particular, there is the distressing case etched in the minds of Southport parliamentarians of Edward Marshall Hall. As a Conservative Member, he was returned with a narrow majority of 209 votes, and it is almost exactly 100 years ago to the day that he made his maiden speech in this Chamber.
  Mr. Hall chose the subject not of licensing changes but of temperance reform, which was a significant political issue in 1901. He spoke particularly of the then endemic problem of under-age children and youths being sent to public houses to fetch ale for their fathers. It is perhaps a mixed indicator of social and moral change that children no longer enter pubs on their fathers' behalf or even with their fathers' knowledge or permission. If they do so, they are motivated no longer by filial duty but by a desire for personal consumption. In his maiden speech, Mr. Hall chose to address the House on the evil of children transporting liquor from pub to home.
  The Tory party in those days was clearly entering a period of policy revision. Belonging lo the socially liberal wing of his party, Mr. Hall did not propose harsh penalties, but that beer should be sent around in carts like milk and deposited on the doorstep. It is recorded that his bold and imaginative proposal was greeted with hoots of derision, that he was loth ever to speak again and that he felt that his talents were never sufficiently recognised.
  That awful precedent aside, to follow Mr. Ronnie Fearn is daunting enough. Members will recall that, in his two spells as a Member of Parliament, Mr. Fearn was a model of diligence in his pursuit of constituency affairs and a resolute champion of Southport and its people at Westminster.
  Anyone who, like me, has canvassed the streets of Southport will observe that it is rare to go down any street and fail to find someone who has been directly helped by Ronnie. Indeed, it is rare in some parts of Southport to go down a street and fail to find someone who is related to Ronnie or has been at school with him. He was born, schooled and employed in the town, was a councillor there
  686
  for nearly 40 years and was awarded an OBE for services to the town. Ronnie has been everything a constituency MP should be. He is a legend in his own community.
  It has been gratifying but not surprising to learn on arriving at Westminster how well thought of Ronnie is among Back Benchers. I have learned that he is even held in high respect by those responsible for the running and conduct of this great ship of state who have inside knowledge and whom we disdain at our peril: the team of parliamentary attendants and officers.
  Ronnie has remained, persistently and consistently, a man of the people. In his case, there was no disconnection between politics and people. Among a sea of grey suits, Ronnie was a character. Few, perhaps none, in this Chamber would have the sheer nerve and joie de vivre regularly to star in pantomime in front of thousands of their constituents. Of course, there are unkind observers who say that that is exactly what we do, and perhaps there are too many parallels between the activities—indeed, many would say that the experience of throwing sweets at an expectant audience and harkening to shouts of "Look behind you!" is the best possible preparation for political life.
  Ronnie will continue to serve Parliament as a peer—a not inappropriate outcome, given that he played a significant role in securing heritage lottery funds for the restoration of Southport pier. Those unfamiliar with that great landmark should set aside any preconceptions that they have about piers: it is far longer than one can imagine, but despite that—and such is the measure of the Southport sands—it fails to reach the sea except at high tide. The pier restoration is only one small manifestation of the on-going renaissance of Southport—a process that not unnaturally coincides with Liberal Democrat leadership of the council.
  That has not passed unnoticed in the House. A quality tourist and retail venue, Southport has had an increased influx of visitors in recent months. Those visitors have included the right hon. Members for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Portillo), for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) and for Devizes (Mr. Ancram)—in fact most probable and improbable candidates for the Tory leadership. I trust that they enjoyed their stay.
  It would be foolish of me to pretend that all is well in my part of the world, however. There are deep misgivings about the state of public services, and especially about the way in which they are delivered. The local police force has lost 500 police as a result of the systematic planned Home Office reduction endorsed by both previous Governments: the real effect has been real delays in police response and availability. That has been coupled with— dare I say, "masked by"?—a dazzling range of initiatives: partnerships have mushroomed; there has been a constant chorus of consultation; and police have been taught to talk like insurance salesmen. However, nothing can disguise the simple fact that we want more policemen. It is the result of decisions and actions of the House and the Government that we have not got them so far.
  What we have instead is the endless reconfiguration of public services, and the continuous and futile attempts to remodel public services on private enterprise—a vice endemic to both previous Governments. When people phone the local police in Southport, it does no good to find that piped music is played as they wait for their query to be

  687
  dealt with. When people dial 999, it does no good being told helpfully that they are queueing in a call-waiting system. That sort of thing might work for retailers, but it does not work when there is an intruder in the house.
  My conclusion is simple. In Southport and elsewhere, public services have been the focus of the election. The issues surrounding the way in which they should be fairly resourced are clear. However, the battles ahead will have more to do with the way in which they are to be delivered. Two parties in the House appear to be persuaded, either wholly or in part, that only in so far as public service is modelled on or involves the private sector can it deliver. The premise is that public services cannot be delivered effectively by public servants. That is a counsel of despair and is recognised as such. One party represented in the Chamber sees a clear difference between public service delivery and selling soap. On behalf of the citizens of Southport, I respectfully submit that the time is now overdue to state the ancient but unhappily no longer orthodox view that public services are best delivered by those whose personal destiny lies with rendering public benefits, not private profits.
  The concept of public services pursuing publicly agreed objectives, run by public servants and accountable to nationally or locally elected bodies is clearly one with which the current Government have difficulty. It is of grave concern to people in the north, especially in Southport, that not only is the Government's confidence in public servants in question, but they have seriously weakened the link between the delivery of services and democratically elected bodies. There is a link between our public service problem and the democratic deficit. If the people who truly control public services are increasingly quango placemen, assorted partnerships, shareholders in private companies and the glitterati of Whitehall, what can a vote in a ballot box do?
  There is a connection between the disquiet about public services and the disquiet about the workings of our democracy. The House's timidity about constitutional reform has produced regional agencies where there should be regional autonomy, a confusing plethora of partnerships, the marginalisation of local councillors and the sidelining of this Chamber—in a nutshell, the general decay of democratic accountability. Can it not be said that the proper, if not the best way to restore confidence in public service is to restore democratic accountability? That is the message from Southport.
  6.25 pm
  Mr. Jimmy Hood: I congratulate you on your re-election to Parliament, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is nice to see you in your usual place.
  I welcome all the new Members on both sides of the Chamber to the House of Commons. I am sure that they will enjoy their stay and the work that they do on behalf of their constituents. The first speech in this debate from a Back Bencher—made two hours after the debate began—was made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), who told the House that it had been 22 years and a Queen's Speech since he had made his maiden speech. He was followed by the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh), who said that he had made his maiden speech 18 years ago.
  688
  I shall follow their lead and say that it is 14 years and a Queen's Speech since I made my maiden speech. The three of us have in common our sympathy with and admiration for all Members who come here to make their maiden speech.
  I congratulate the hon. Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh) on his maiden speech. I am sure that his family and constituents will be proud of him. He will enjoy his time in the House of Commons and he will make some alliances across the political divide. I am sure that he will be surprised by some of his experiences here, but they will not impair his enjoyment.
  Focusing on constitutional issues, I want to comment on the turnout in the recent general election. None of us can be comfortable with such a drop in turnout. Only a few months prior to the election, I introduced in the House a modest ten-minute Bill called the Rewarding Democracy Commission Bill. I argued in favour of granting incentives to increase public participation in the democratic process. However, the Tory party issued a three-line Whip in respect of my ten-minute Bill—a move unheard of in my time here—and voted it down. All I did was propose establishing a commission to consider how to reward people for participating in democracy. We must think of ways in which to improve our people's participation in their own democracy, but let me put down a marker tonight: whatever the solution to the problem of turnout, the status quo is not an option.
  My next topic is devolution. The Scottish Parliament is about to celebrate its second year in existence. Like all new democracies, it had its teething troubles while it settled down, but I was confident that Parliament and the Government were doing the right thing when we passed the legislation to give Scotland its own Parliament, and I remain as confident today. Unfortunately, the hon. Member for Gainsborough is not present to hear my comments on the West Lothian question. I have never had any problems with that question, just as he and his colleagues never had any problems when voting to impose the poll tax on Scotland, or voting on Scottish legislation.
  The real answer to the West Lothian question is to embrace the new democracy that devolution offers the United Kingdom. We must think about how we can decentralise government to the regions—a process for which I suspect that there will be cross-party support. I hope that the Government continue to develop their ideas on constitutional reform and ways in which we can improve our democracy. I assure those in the English regions who argue for their own assemblies that they will find a sympathetic ear and support on my part.
  I am delighted that there will be a Bill to ratify the Nice treaty. I was in this place in 1992 when we debated the Maastricht treaty. It will be amusing for us to observe the Conservative party ripping itself apart yet again. It was a wonderful sight to behold. The Tories were then in government, and I remember the night when we beat them on a vote. The then Prime Minister had to whip all his Eurosceptic right hon. and hon. Friends into line from the Dispatch Box; he threatened them with a general election. The next day, they all said dutifully that Europe was a good idea if it stopped them from getting the sack. A few of those Members are no longer in this place. I suspect that unless there is some rethinking in the Opposition on how we embrace the European Union and involve ourselves in it, Conservative numbers in the House will continue to decrease.

  689
  I am sorry that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is no longer in his place. However, I am sure that he will receive a report of my contribution to the debate on the need for scrutiny. I was fortunate to be the Chairman of the Select Committee on European Scrutiny in the previous Parliament and of the Select Committee on European Legislation in the Parliament before that.
  I say to Ministers and to the Government—I hope that we are beginning to be listened to—that scrutiny is extremely important. Those of us who scrutinise European legislation and all those who are members of departmental Select Committees are serving Parliament. They do not take on that role as enemies of Ministers. If the process is used properly, good scrutiny aids government. I hope that the quality of the scrutiny of European legislation enables us to tell Ministers what is happening in their Departments, because all too often they are unaware of that. That is the value of scrutiny. I hope that we shall consider further reforms of that process. It is not a matter of giving power to Select Committees with which to bind the Government. Power should be given to Parliament to scrutinise how we deliver to the people in the communities that we represent. That is not only in Parliament's interests or those of communities, it is in the interests of the Government of the day as well. The collective need should be recognised.
  There were some significant reforms in the scrutiny of European legislation in the previous Parliament. The Scrutiny Committee has considerably more powers than previously. I can remember arguing the case for five such Committees. Those who were Members during the previous Parliament will remember the argument and will be aware that we ended up with three Committees instead of two. The case for five was the right one, and I do not say that as a means of saying, "I told you so." I hope that the new Leader of the House and this Parliament will consider how we engage Parliament in scrutinising European Union issues.
  We should have five Committees so that more Members are involved in the scrutiny process. On that basis, we would be serving Parliament—we are honoured to be Members of it—our communities and democracy.
  I, too, am more than comfortable with the Gracious Speech. However, there will be areas of policy where we shall have to examine matters carefully, scrutinise, discuss and investigate if we are to arrive, at best practice—if that is not to use buzzwords—in terms of how we deliver services and democracy inside and outside the House. I am delighted to support the Gracious Speech. I hope that my small contribution on scrutiny will be considered when we come to talk about improving procedures.
  6.34 pm
  Mr. Alex Salmond: First, I shall comment on the excellent speech of the hon. Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh). As all Members do when making a maiden speech, he talked about his constituency and his predecessors in the first part of his speech. It is right and proper to do so. I was interested particularly in the second part of the hon. Gentleman's speech, which touched on what I think should be the main issue for debate today. He referred to the phrase in the Opposition amendment about the
  "democratic accountability of Her Majesty's Government and its servants"
  690
  and considered whether that sentiment is compatible with the privatisation of public services. The second part of the hon. Gentleman's speech was hugely impressive. It augurs well for his future contributions in this place. I do not know whether I shall do him a service or a disservice when I say that I will apply his approach to my brief remarks.
  There is an interesting part of the Tory amendment about participation rates in national elections. Participation rates seem not to be extending to the Tory Benches.
  In the election campaign, I think that the Prime Minister had one tremendous stroke of luck. On the day when he was berated by a distressed lady outside a hospital in Edgbaston, the Deputy Prime Minister decided to pursue his dialogue with the public in an altogether more vigorous fashion. That was an amazing stroke of luck because it pushed the hospital confrontation from the top of the news in every bulletin to item three, four or five.
  Although the action of the Deputy Prime Minister was top of the news, I can report from my constituency that, rightly or wrongly—although I do not believe that he is constitutionally entitled to punch members of the public— there was sympathy for the quality of his left jab, whereas there was no sympathy for the Prime Minister's handling of a clearly upset lady whose partner was in a cancer ward.
  It was a stroke of luck. I do not think that even new Labour could have planned the synchronisation of the two events. The episode involving the Prime Minister would have been intensely damaging to the Government's position if it had received the prominence that would have been given to it if it were not for the activities of the Deputy Prime Minister.
  The issue of whether it is possible to have accountable public services touches at the heart of what is going on in the House. We had almost a pantomime today. It was almost a surreal experience. The Prime Minister accused the Leader of the Opposition of planning the privatisation of the health service. We all know that the Prime Minister is planning to privatise key areas of it. [Interruption.] Of course he is. Did not Labour Members read the coded language of the Prime Minister's speeches during the election campaign? Did not they notice in the Gracious Speech that we shall have school sponsorship? What sort of school sponsorship will we have? Will we have McDonald's grammar schools to teach pupils about healthy eating? Will we have Coca-Cola grammar schools to teach pupils about healthy drinking? If one of the leadership candidates in the Conservative party is successful, perhaps he will support the Government in having Imperial Tobacco sponsoring schools throughout the country.
  If the private sector takes on responsibility for not merely the provision of private finance, a policy which was started by the Conservatives and continued by new Labour for a substantial period, but the running of key parts of public services, where lies the accountability that is spoken about in the Opposition's amendment in terms of the public sector and public servants?
  The irony of the amendment is to say that the Gracious Speech puts forward no proposals to increase public accountability, when the Conservatives were the forerunners of the very policy that the Prime Minister seems to want enthusiastically to pursue. I used to earn a

  691
  bare crust as the economist to the Royal Bank of Scotland. I have therefore worked in the private sector, unlike the Prime Minister or the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who—unless being a barrister or television pundit counts—have never done so. I can report that my former colleagues in the Royal Bank of Scotland and, indeed, in every other financial institution are enthusiastic about the private finance initiative because it has made them a great deal of money. We should not complain about that, because the role of private companies is to make profits and create jobs. The fault does not lie with the banks, financial institutions and contractors, but with those who are meant to defend and protect the public interest, but do not have the common sense and judgment to appreciate that we are not getting value for money from the pursuit of private finance in our great public services.
  If I had time, I could go through the excellent work done by Allyson Pollock, for example, and the analysis of a range of PFI projects, such as the Edinburgh Royal infirmary, which give the clearest indication yet that they represent much worse value for money for the public sector than alternative means of raising finance. They make clear the implications for jobs, pay, and services within the health service and, increasingly, within the education service of taking on PFI commitments. As someone who has worked in the private sector—and I yield to no one in my admiration for entrepreneurship and people creating jobs—surely, in relation to public accountability, we can see a clear demarcation between what should happen in the competitive economy and what should happen in public services.
  I read closely the article in The Observer on Sunday by the former deputy leader of the Labour party who, during his active political career, was regarded as being well on the right of the party. He expressed anguish that, as a social democrat—an honourable political philosophy to pursue—he now found himself on the extreme left of new Labour on a range of public policy issues. The article may have been motivated by a range of things, but it was correct in one aspect its argument that the Prime Minister seemed to be ideologically adrift, with no reference points about what should, or should not be done as far as the public sector and public accountability are concerned.
  Having listened to an exchange earlier today—and Labour Members had better cotton on to this—I believe that the Prime Minister is mesmerised by what he thinks is the efficacy of private management and private finance in our great public services. However, the people have a different judgment. The Prime Minister is back with a tremendous majority, not because of that policy, but because of the lack of a serious alternative from the Opposition to what he was hinting at in the election campaign and what he wants to pursue in public policy, as outlined in the Gracious Speech.
  I remember the interview that the Prime Minister gave on "Breakfast with Frost" in which he said that it would be a good idea if funding of the health service moved up to the European standard. If we are going to meet that standard, we will have to increase funding to 9.1 per cent, of gross domestic product. However, the gap between us and European provision is not about private finance; throughout the UK, private health service provision is about I per cent., as it is across the continent. The gap is about the lack of public provision.
  692
  On Monday night, I participated in a debate with the Mayor of London. A GP from London pointed out that the bed occupancy rate in the London health service is 99 per cent. In such a situation, there is no slack or room for manoeuvre; there is no ability to do anything to respond, not just to emergencies or winter crises, but any situation. Would it not be a really useful idea to invest in our public services without serving the god or at the altar of privatisation? Would it not be a good idea if we tried to see what we can do with public services and public accountability if we provide funds? Would that not increase the public's faith in politics and increase their participation in our democracy?
  6.44 pm
  Mr. Tom Harris: I am grateful for the opportunity to address the House for the first time since my election. I hope that hon. Members will display their customary patience and indulgence on such occasions. A former Speaker of this House, J. W. Lowther, said in 1919 that there were three golden rules for parliamentary speakers:
  "Stand up. Speak up. Shut up."
  I will try to bear them in mind.
  In the tradition of maiden speeches, first, I pay tribute to my predecessor, John Maxton, who was clearly held in great affection and esteem by his colleagues on both sides of the House, as well as by his constituents. He was an assiduous, hard-working Member who served his constituency and his party's Front Bench with deep commitment. I am convinced that, had the Labour Party won the 1992 general election, John Maxton would have been invited to serve in government, a chance that he would have richly deserved, but was denied only through bad timing.
  John Maxton was renowned in the Labour party for two reasons. First, he could claim impressive lineage as the nephew of the famous Independent Labour party MP, the red Clydesider, Jimmy Maxton. Secondly, he became something of a Labour hero in 1979, when he unexpectedly won Glasgow, Cathcart from the sitting Member, the then shadow Secretary of State for Scotland, now the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor). It is perhaps unusual for a Member's predecessor to have retired after 22 years' service, yet for his predecessor's predecessor still to be a Member. Even now, many of my constituents still speak fondly of the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend East, and I hope that, one day, I can match the affection with which he is still regarded in Glasgow, Cathcart.
  Cathcart is one of nine Glasgow constituencies. Geographically, it is the largest in the city, stretching from Carnwadric and Kennishead in the west, to Castlemilk in the south and east; from Mount Florida and Crosshill in the north to Muirend in the south. Castlemilk itself, once a byword for deprivation, with a population equivalent to the Scottish city of Perth, now has a fraction of its original population. Castlemilk has changed out of all recognition over recent years and, importantly, the emigration from Castlemilk to other parts of the city is, at last, starting to be reversed. Of course, like any other housing estate in the country, Castlemilk does not have its problems to seek. In particular, drugs misuse has scarred the lives of thousands of families in my constituency, and I am delighted that the Government have given notice to those who profit illegally from others' misery that their evil trade will no longer be tolerated.

  693
  Scots, and Glaswegians in particular, have a great resilient spirit, matched only by their sense of humour. There is nothing quite like a close encounter with a member of one's electorate to eradicate any sense of self-importance in a candidate. In the general election campaign, I was canvassing in Castlemilk drive one Sunday afternoon. I introduced myself to one elderly voter as the Labour candidate and asked, "Can I ask how you intend to vote on Thursday?". She replied, "Oh, I'm just going to go round the corner to the primary school as usual, son."
  I am conscious of the convention that maiden speeches should avoid any controversial subjects; the last thing that I would seek is a reprimand from you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for contravening any House rule. I doubt if I could respond to such a reprimand with the flair and humour shown, for example, by Benjamin Disraeli, who was once criticised by the Speaker for declaring,
  "Half the Cabinet are asses."
  He later apologised and said:
  "Mr Speaker, I withdraw. Half the Cabinet are not asses."
  I hope that I can be allowed to say a few words, not so much about the Gracious Speech as about what was not in it. A great deal has been spoken and written in the past few weeks—and much has been said in the House this afternoon—about how we can encourage voters back into the polling booths. Some claim that a change in the electoral system for the House would increase participation at elections, but my experience has not borne that out. The first ever Scottish parliamentary elections in 1999 were held using the additional member system. Only 60 per cent, of voters in Scotland took part—more than 10 per cent, fewer than at the general election two years previously. In June 1999, fewer than 30 per cent of voters took part in the European parliamentary elections, which were held under the closed list system.
  Now there are some who want a fourth, altogether different system for electing Members to the House, called AV-plus. Apart from the dangers of creating a two-tier House of Commons, with MPs of different status, and apart from the confusion that inevitably arises whenever a new voting system is introduced, we have to consider another more damaging consequence of changing the existing system. If Governments in future are cobbled together by politicians behind closed doors instead of being elected by voters at the ballot box, how can we expect people to come out and vote? My fear is that a few years after the new system was introduced, we would look back with longing and envy at the turnout of 2001. So may I take this opportunity to express the hope that a similar omission will be made from the Gracious Speech for many years to come?
  It appears that I am setting out on my parliamentary career at a time when the public perception of Parliament and politicians of all parties is at an all-time low. We are told by political commentators that politicians are held in far less esteem by the electorate than was the case 50 years ago. We are also told by the same political commentators that that was one of the reasons for such a low turnout at the general election. There may well be some truth in that, but as a former member of the fourth estate, I suggest that at least some of the blame for the electorate's lack of enthusiasm for politics stems from the media themselves.
  Enoch Powell once said that politicians who complain about the media are like ships' captains who complain about the sea. Nevertheless, at the risk of being swept
  694
  overboard, let me ask this: during the election, how often did we read in the newspapers, hear on the radio or see on television so-called humorous advice to voters to go on holiday to avoid election coverage, or not to answer the door in case it was a canvasser? In their few attempts to make politics more interesting to a larger number of voters, journalists risk trivialising issues to the point of ridicule.
  Now, many members of the public, the media and even this House may well find the Tory leadership campaign to be beyond ridicule, but I am making a genuine cross-party point. When BBC television news can illustrate the leadership election by depicting every prospective candidate as a cartoon pantomime character, it is time to ask whether the media's claim that politicians are no longer respected has not become a self-fulfilling prophecy.
  We have all arrived at the House by very different routes and with very different qualifications to do the job before us. I hope my own experience and qualifications put me on a higher level than the unfortunate gentleman of whom George Bernard Shaw once wrote:
  "He knows nothing and he thinks he knows everything. That points clearly to a political career."
  It is an extraordinary privilege to have been elected to this House. I believe that this sovereign Parliament of the United Kingdom remains the best hope for radical change in the lives of the millions of people that we represent. So I finish by expressing the hope that in the next few years I can play some part in helping bring about the changes that we need and I thank the House for its indulgence this evening.
  6.52 pm
  Mr. Humfrey Matins: I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Harris) on his excellent maiden speech. He spoke generously about his predecessors, which was appreciated throughout the House; he spoke with humour and he spoke quite movingly about some of the problems of the low turnout. We all listened to his speech and we look forward to hearing much more from him in future. I thank him on behalf of us all.
  I congratulate the Home Secretary on his appointment and welcome his new ministerial team. It is good to see them all in their places. I declare, as always, an interest, as I must in these debates, as a recorder of the Crown court, a former acting metropolitan stipendiary magistrate and now a deputy district judge in the magistrates courts in London. I should like to say something about the criminal courts this evening.
  Mr. Banks: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman has time to be here.
  Mr. Matins: I missed the hon. Gentleman's intervention, but I bet that it was so good that it would probably have incurred him six months if he had appeared before me, which in the current situation would have had him out in six weeks—and not a moment too soon.
  If I may offer the Government a word of advice, it is that they should not legislate too much. The criminal justice system has been subject to a plethora of legislation for the past 15 or 20 years. I remember the Conservative party starting it. When I was first elected in 1983 we

  695
  seemed to have a Criminal Justice Act or two every year. Perhaps it is time to reflect for a moment on what we have done and to see whether we have got it right or wrong.
  In a few moments, I shall turn to a couple of matters that we need to correct, but first let me say a word about prisons. Members on both sides of the House share a concern about the state of our prisons. It is not a party political issue. Members everywhere are ashamed of what goes on in our prisons. There are good ones, and Sir David Ramsbotham, who was an excellent chief inspector of prisons, pointed out the good prisons—the ones with a good work regime and good morale— but, my goodness, there are some bad ones.
  I was most depressed by my last visit to Feltham young offenders institute, and I advise all hon. Members to go and see it. The institute is in two wings— A wing and B wing— one of which is for under-18s. A lot of money is spent on the under-18s, who have a constructive time. There is plenty of education, work and sport and morale is not too bad, but for the over-18s it is simply dreadful. Would any of us want to see young men of 19 locked up for 18 hours a day? The situation is absolutely hopeless. Any of us in that position would come out bitter and twisted— much worse than when we went in. Is there any team sport for the 18 and 19-year-olds? There is hardly any. There is very little education or preparation for the outside. That is the fault of Governments over the years. Perhaps the problem is money, but it depresses me as a judge and as a member of the Home Affairs Committee to go to Feltham and to see a real problem— to see young men for whom I am very sorry indeed. I hope that that does not sound soft. I mean that I am very sorry indeed that there they have absolutely zero chance of making any progress when they come out. It is an absolute tragedy. Let us all co-operate in trying to address it.
  I was really pleased to hear the Home Secretary say that he would try to involve hon. Members on both sides of the House in sensible discussions about the way forward in the criminal justice system. I have had enough of yah-boo politics. I have experienced it for too long and I am not very good at it. I should like instead to have some serious chats with people who know the subject and I welcome what the Home Secretary said in that respect.
  I am not sure whether we need wholesale changes in our criminal justice system. I would rather look at the current system and see where we can make some improvements. I am about to set out a technical problem. I would be tempted to ask hon. Members to put their hands up if they were aware of it, but I know that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would rule me out of order if I did so. It concerns the youth courts and it is addressed to those who might be advising the Government. It is a real problem in the courts where I sit, and I sit from Camberwell to Greenwich, Woolwich, Horseferry road, Bow street and Highbury corner. It concerns 12 to 14-year olds and the question of custody in the youth courts.
  A persistent offender aged 12 to 14 can be given up to two years' custody by the youth courts. A non-persistent offender cannot be given a custodial sentence, so what happens? If two young boys appear charged with a fairly serious offence and one is a persistent offender, he can be given two years' custody, but what about his mate, who is of good character? The youth court is unable to pass a custodial sentence. If it considers that custody is even a
  696
  possibility, it has to send that young man to be dealt with by the Crown court, which creates enormous upset. Crown court judges are saying, "What on earth is going on? We are getting all these young men aged 14 being sent to the Crown court. That is stupid. Why on earth can't the youth court have the same powers in respect of those who were previously of good character as it has with persistent offenders?" It would be a small amendment to make, but it is a problem that worries district judges right across London. It is something that the Government need to put right.
  There is another little matter that we could put right. Currently, there is what is known as a section 51 transfer. A defendant appears before the magistrates court and on an indictable-only offence does not get committed for trial, which takes weeks, but is transferred straight to the Crown court. That it straightforward when it relates to adults who are transferred straight to the Crown court and it is over in a flash, but no such power exists for youths. Why not? The provision could be tagged on to a Bill currently going through Parliament.
  We are all worried about the Crown Prosecution Service. Is it underfunded? What is wrong? Is there a morale problem? Those of us who appear in court regularly see day after day the CPS apparently in some difficulty, to put it mildly, with its files, which cannot be found.
  Defendants who have appeared before me at Camberwell Green magistrates court have elected for a committal to a Crown court, but the CPS representatives were told by their bosses to ask for a six-week remand before committal, or a four-week remand if the defendant was in custody. It takes about half an hour to prepare the papers for a committal, although it can take two days if it is a difficult case, but ii does not take six weeks. Someone somewhere has to drive the CPS into being able to commit cases to the Crown court much faster than it has hitherto.
  There is something in magistrates courts called the criminal justice unit—a group of people whom we never see. It is a type of liaison between the Crown prosecutor and police. Time after time, however, cases are adjourned because witnesses have not turned up and it turns out that the criminal justice unit had done nothing about warning them. There are inefficiencies in the system, and much has to be put right. However, we do not need a fundamental reform of the entire system.
  I am slightly in favour of some reform of the double jeopardy rule. I think that there is a good argument for it in cases where a life sentence could be passed. However, I am worried about the proposals on jury trial, which I think will encounter a pretty tough fight in the House.
  If we have a rule that simply says, "If magistrates think that their powers of punishment are enough, there will be no jury trial", it would exclude the possibility of magistrates having any discretion to permit the defendant, who may be of previous good character, to elect Crown court trial. We have heard about abuse of the system by which people elect Crown court trial, but such abuse is disappearing. Nowadays, there is something called plea before venue, and there are other means of keeping the process short. Other developments in magistrates courts are improving efficiency, notably plea before venue. I therefore advise Ministers to be very careful with their proposals on jury trial and to talk to the whole House about them.

  697
  My final comments are on the great, big issue of the day—drugs. Young men of 17 to 25 appear before me who are heroin addicts. Their lives are ruined and it is absolutely tragic. They burgle houses to get the goods, and they sell the goods to buy the heroin. I agree that we need a royal commission on drugs, a sensible chat about which drugs we should or should not legalise and what to do about heroin. For example, there is now a drug, Naltrexone, which has been tested in America and which helps to block out the need for heroin. Cocaine is a problem, but heroin is the biggest problem facing young people today. Please, let the House spend four years trying to sort out the serious issue of the effect of drugs on young people in the criminal justice system
  7.2 pm
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: I listened with interest to the comments of the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) on Feltham young offenders institute, which is not far from my constituency and I have visited. I share his concern about conditions there. I also join him in praising my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Harris) for his excellent maiden speech. My hon. Friend paid proper tribute to the excellent John Maxton, and his constituents can be truly proud of his first speech in this place. I should also acknowledge the very strong maiden speech of the hon. Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh).
  I share the view of those who have said that modernisation of our public services, particularly our criminal justice system, is the crucial challenge facing the House in the next four years. The environmental challenge, however, will take more than four years to resolve. We have to determine how best to reduce our carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions.
  Maintaining a strong economy is a central factor in addressing both those issues. Our strong economy, and strong memories of crime doubling under the previous Conservative Government—who promised an extra 5,000 police officers in 1992, whereas the police establishment had been reduced by 1,500 officers by 1997—were powerful factors in my own and my hon. Friends' re-election to the House.
  The general election campaign also clarified the electorate's endorsement of the Government's view that the fruits of a strong economy should be invested in our public services. The hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) did the United Kingdom a service by revealing Conservative Members' deep antipathy to sustained high investment in our public services: just imagine the implications of a £20 billion public spending cut for our police forces and for the regeneration funding that is necessary for community renewal.
  The way in which reform is achieved and extra money is used in our public services are crucial issues. I have no ideological problem with enhanced use of the private sector. The credit card industry, for example, was sensibly involved in tackling credit card fraud, and the private finance initiative has delivered hospitals. We have to examine each case on its merits. I feel some frustration, however, about the way in which the debate on private sector involvement in our public services is being conducted. We have to move on from the very narrow private sector versus public sector debate. If we can do that, it will help us to deal with the concerns of some of those who did not vote in the general election.
  698
  We should examine the role of the third sector in our economy and consider how to extend the role of schemes such as neighbourhood watch and victim support. Those key third-sector organisations are rooted in the community and play a vital role in helping to prevent crime and in supporting the victims of crime. Co-operatives and other mutual organisations, social enterprises and not-for-profit bodies could have a new role in tackling some of the problems facing both our public services and other services on which the public rely. Harmoni, in my own constituency, is a general practitioners co-operative that has transformed not only the provision of out-of-hours GP care but the terms of service for the GPs participating in the co-operative.
  In the private sector, the financial services industry is filling big gaps in efforts to tackle financial exclusion, with credit unions and building societies providing many of the cheapest loans available. I hope that we shall see further measures to extend the role of credit unions and building societies.
  Perhaps we should consider a mutual model for Railtrack. In addition to considering whether to renationalise it or maintain it as a purely private company, surely it is worth debating the option of applying a not-for-profit or business mutual model to that organisation. We could consider applying mutual models in the water industry, too, as a means of remedying serious under-investment and a lack of consumer input and control in the sector.
  In debating our public services, particularly our criminal justice system, we have to consider not only structure but how to improve the quality of leadership. I think that, with the extra resources that the Government are making available, the police reform Bill will help police in my constituency to develop much more flexible and effective services, to respond more quickly to the concerns of local people. Nationally, we have to find a much better way of celebrating and rewarding best practice in police forces and other parts of the public services. We also have to examine ways of enabling leaders to develop their talents and consider how best to retain our police officers.
  We definitely have to ensure that there is a much more sensitive, partnership-style approach to national monitoring and inspection regimes by bodies such as the Office for Standards in Education and the Audit Commission. Those regimes should, however, remain just as rigorous. We also have to consider how to maintain the flow of staff between our public services and private and third-sector bodies.
  In the general election campaign, the quality of the health service and the fear of crime were two of the most important issues in my constituency. I hope that we shall see much more investment in Northwick Park hospital, which is the key acute hospital in my constituency. The NHS reform Bill will be a key factor in giving GPs a greater say and greater clout in the local health care economy. I hope that such measures will enable us to modernise intermediate care services, such as those that are potentially on offer at Northwood and Pinner community hospital.

  699
  We also need much more investment in social services if we are to tackle some of the causes of crime. The image of Harrow—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman's speech is drifting somewhat. He ought to come back to the terms of the amendment.
  Mr. Thomas: The one key concern flagged up by the amendment, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is the falling participation rate in our national elections. One of the ways to tackle the drop in numbers of those voting in my constituency and the wider borough of Harrow will be to provide additional resources to tackle some of the problems in Harrow. There is real social need alongside great wealth in the area, and I hope to see changes in the local government funding formula to reflect that.
  I welcome the Bills on police reform and the proceeds of crime, not least because, over the next 12 months, they will help to tackle a key challenge for the Metropolitan police—violent crime. The experience of crime and the fear of violent crime in particular have a deeply pernicious influence on people's lives and their ability to participate in the community. A new drive to take on the organised criminals behind much of London's violent crime—aided by the criminal asset recovery agency, for example—is essential.
  I look forward to the Halliday and Auld reports being published and I hope that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary's announcement of a standards unit will enable a proper inspection of crime and disorder partnerships. The very best of these work effectively in bringing together all statutory and voluntary agencies in the fight against crime, but some partnerships do need proper scrutiny by such a unit to make sure that "partnership" is a reality, and is not just talked about.
  Another key issue that would help to drive up participation rates in our elections will be tackling some of this country's environmental issues. I am pro-nuclear, but considerable investment in renewable energy over the next four years is essential if we are to tackle the immediate problem of lowering our greenhouse gas emissions.
  I welcome the Queen's Speech and the measures to improve our criminal justice system, but I hope that Ministers will not lose sight of the environmental challenge.
  7.12 pm
  Mr. Mark Field: It is with a great sense of honour that I rise to speak in this House for the first time today. I know that at least 658 people will disagree with my contention that the Cities of London and Westminster is the most prestigious constituency in the United Kingdom, but it is probably fair to say that it is where so many of the great matters of our history have taken place.
  I was born in Germany and brought up in the home counties. I first came to Westminster and central London when I was about seven years old. I remember the excitement of seeing Buckingham Palace, St. Paul's Cathedral and all the other great landmarks in my
  700
  constituency. Little did I realise that, less than three decades later, I would be lucky enough to represent this constituency.
  It was a particular joy for me to learn that I am the third-youngest Member of Parliament for the City of London part of my constituency in the past 160 years. I realise that I have a hard task before me, not least as I must follow Peter Brooke, who was Member of Parliament for my constituency for the past quarter of a century. As the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) said earlier, he will go now to the House of Lords. He has been a great help to me in the 18 months since my selection as a candidate. He has been a great servant not only to my party, but to the country at large.
  As many hon. Members know, Peter Brooke has an erudite manner, which will be sadly missed and which, I am afraid, will not be entirely replicated by myself in this House in the years ahead. He had two obsessive interests; election statistics and cricket. When he used to talk wistfully about what it was like in the Rawalpindi in 1935, one never knew whether he was referring to some arcane test match trivia or some local election statistics. He will be sadly missed and I only hope that I will be able to follow in his footsteps as best I can.
  One of the difficulties of representing Westminster is that a great number of fellow Members live within my constituency. I was made aware of that only yesterday in the Lobby when I was harangued by two colleagues, complaining, respectively, about traffic calming and the strictly enforced parking regulations in this part of London. I should point out that I have never been a councillor in the City of Westminster. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly) was a councillor here until April and he is the person to whom Members should put all their complaints in future.
  Mr. George Howarth: Passing the buck already.
  Mr. Field: Absolutely.
  All of us who come to this House have different backgrounds and—with your indulgence, Mr. Deputy Speaker—I should like to say a little about mine and about why I wanted to enter public life. My mother was born in the early months of the last world war in 1939 in a little village outside a large town called Breslau—now called Wroclaw—which subsequently became part of Poland. My grandfather, whom I barely knew—I was about three when he passed away—was born exactly 100 years ago. He grew up in the 1920s and 1930s in Germany, at a time when politics was very much looked down upon by the ruling class. He was from a well-to-do Silesian family and became a doctor.
  My grandfather regretted to his dying day that he had rather looked down on politics, as had many others of his generation, as that was the vacuum that, along with the discredited Weimar republic and the great economic crisis in Germany in the 1920s, let in, to a large extent, national socialism. People say to me that politics does not matter very much, but, like many here, I am concerned that there is a sense of apathy. Many hon. Members would confirm from their experience of recent weeks and months that there is antipathy from many members of the electorate. We must do our best to re-engage them.

  701
  My mother was twice a refugee by the age of 15, fleeing first from Breslau to Leipzig and then, finally, from east to west Berlin before the days of the Berlin wall. It was instilled in me from a young age that politics is far too important to be left to someone else. I am a great believer in the words of Edmund Burke, a great Tory philosopher, who said that for evil to prevail requires no more than for good men to do nothing.
  I wish to refer to the constitutional reforms of recent years. I believe that my party was too timid in the post-1997 era, particularly in relation to what was going on at the other place. The House of Lords reforms were botched and partisan, and we shall see what is to come in the second stage of those reforms. However, my belief is that we have little choice and we cannot turn the clock back. We should perhaps have defended the status quo more robustly than we did. However, and this will be a rare use of these words, I now agree with the Liberal Democrat policy that we need to move to a fully elected second senate. As will be pointed out, there will be concerns as to how a fully elected House of Lords will intermesh with an elected House of Commons, and we shall have to face those concerns because of the ill-thought-out constitutional reforms.
  My great political hero is Andrew Bonar Law, who entered this place at the first general election of the last century. It is a salutary lesson that he entered this House with two things in mind: one was the preservation of the empire—he was Canadian; and the other was that Ireland should remain united. By the time he became Prime Minister in 1922, the pass had been lost on both of those main issues, in a sense. That may be a salutary lesson for many Conservative Members who have entered the House as Eurosceptics with strong feelings about the importance of our nation. I am concerned that, in the years ahead, events may move in a direction that we do not, at least at this juncture, consider favourable.
  I also wish to look at, dare I say it, Scottish devolution. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) is not here because I suspect that what I am about to say will warm the cockles of his heart. Conservative Members have perhaps made too much of the idea of English votes for English laws, when the issue should be about Scottish taxes for Scottish expenditure. By dint of a mere 74-vote majority, my hon. Friend the Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Duncan) is the Conservatives' sole Scottish Member of Parliament. We must face facts: at each of the last two general elections, barely one in six Scottish electors have voted for unionist parties, so we are being taken down the path chosen by the Government.
  I am very worried because the Government have upset the equilibrium of the United Kingdom, and it will be difficult to restore. I have a prediction to make, and I hope that I shall be proved wrong. The House must bear it in mind that I am not necessarily the best of forecasters. At the weekend, I told most of my constituency association, or those who wanted to hear, that I did not think that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) would enter the fray for the Tory leadership.
  I predict that there will be two distinct power blocs in the Scottish Parliament: on the one hand, the Liberal Democrats and the Labour party; and on the other, the Scottish National party, possibly in bed with the Conservatives, who will no longer be a unionist party in Scotland. That will present a great challenge in the years
  702
  ahead. My great concern is that the Government have not really thought through their modernisation agenda and are blind to many of the difficulties that will arise from it. I beseech them to tread carefully in constitutional matters.
  I thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to address these crucial matters, on which I know I shall have much more to say in the years ahead.
  7.22 pm
  Mr. Tony Banks: It is normal to extend the ritual courtesies to someone who has just made his first speech, and to say that it was thoughtful and a good contribution. In the case of the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field), I can say that without any exaggeration. He made an awesome speech, and did so as a new Member with far more assurance than I can manage after 18 years in this place. I noticed his lack of notes and his eloquence on the matters that he wanted to address.
  The hon. Gentle man comes from a fascinating background, and I look forward to more contributions from him. He told us that his family came from Germany; indeed, so did our royal family. He also talked about Bonar Law—a strange hero, if I may say so— who was Canadian. We might consider that when we talk about immigration. Probably all of us have predecessors who came here from elsewhere. We should bear in mind the contribution that many eminent people have made to this country over the years. I welcome the hon. Gentleman to the House. He replaces a very erudite, civilised and cultured Member of Parliament in the right hon. Peter Brooke, and I am sure that he has nothing to fear about his ability to stand comparison with Sir Peter, who was much admired by everyone in the House.
  I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Harris), who unfortunately is not here, on his speech. He, too, follows in the footsteps of an assiduous, popular Member of Parliament, John Maxton. Speaking as chairman of the advisory committee on works of art, I can tell the House that John played an eminent part in our deliberations, and we will miss his contribution. I noticed that my hon. Friend bears a remarkable physical resemblance to John, and I remind him that John was a fairly regular runner in the London marathon, so I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to follow in those sweaty footsteps.
  Although he is not here, I must mention the speech of a retread, the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham). When he talks about law and order, I am always fascinated. I have to remind myself, and the House, that one of his ancestors assassinated that very good man and Prime Minister, Spencer Perceval, so given the hon. Gentleman's antecedence, I always listen carefully to what he says about law and order.
  There is a good lesson tucked away here. Spencer Perceval was doubly unfortunate: he was shot by a constituent who was complaining about the tardy response to a letter. That was bad enough, but the assassin got the wrong Minister. Let that be an object lesson to all new Members: they must be quick in replying to their constituency correspondence and try to avoid at all costs looking like a Minister in the wrong place at the wrong time.
  As I said, I have been a Member for 18 years, and I had only just got to the point where I thought that I recognised everyone who entered the House in 1997. Now, in 2001,

  703
  there are more new Members, so I am trying to identify them. I apologise for the fact that there are at least two new Members here whom I do not recognise, but they do look stunningly like people whom I do know. I saw a Liberal Democrat Member who looks like Chris Chataway, and behind him, a Member who is still present who looks remarkably like Lord Lucan. May I say, with great respect to the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso) that his Lordship is safe here? He has done well to seek the anonymity of being a Liberal Democrat. There is a Tory Back Bencher who looks remarkably like Mr. Bean. He is welcome, and I hope that his time here will be spent well and to the purpose of the House and his constituents.
  I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on his new post. I knew him when he was a local councillor in Sheffield. We worked together in local government, and he has done rather better than me, of course, but he has also done well for the east end in his capacity as Secretary of State for Education and Employment. I look forward to similar treatment from him for the east end in his new capacity. Having thanked and congratulated everyone, I am running out of time to make my own contribution, but I will, I hope, have opportunities to speak in future.
  I was disappointed with the turnout in West Ham—it was below 50 per cent. I might add that Labour still won handsomely, with 70 per cent, of the vote, so we were not too worried about our majority. What worried me was that 17 per cent, of the households in my constituency had not a single registered voter, which either says something about the collection of details by the local authority and the returning officer or it means that an awful number of people in my constituency are not entitled to vote, although many of them manage to make their way to my advice surgery. [Laughter.] Well, it is a serious point.
  We check to find out which people are registered, and I spend most of my time dealing with those who are not registered. They might have a good reason for that, but what is the relationship of a Member of Parliament to those people? They cannot even say that I am their MP if they did not vote for me. I was toying for a moment with the idea of seeing only those who are on the electoral register, however they voted, but I felt that it would probably be unfair because many of them are asylum seekers and people who want to settle in this country. In view of what I said earlier, most of them are very welcome; indeed, I hope that they will make a contribution.
  One reason for the low turnout is the fact that people are galvanised in an election when they want to vote against something. One rarely runs into demonstrations of people who are, by and large, satisfied with events. I am not being complacent, but I believe that the electorate were prepared to give us, as a party in government, the benefit of the doubt. They saw that we came to power after 18 years of Conservative government, so we have not had enough time to slow the ship down, never mind turn it around. We have these four years to make genuine progress. When the next election comes round, we shall have to demonstrate significant progress and success in the areas where people feel that it is most necessary. If we do that, the new leader of the Conservative party will grow old in opposition, because a Labour Government
  704
  will be returned in election after election. If the new leader of the Conservative party turns out to be the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), he will have to be mummified so that he can see out his time as leader. He smokes so many cigarettes that he has probably kippered himself already.
  We will be asked about delivery of services such as health, education, law and order, transport, and we cannot be prescriptive about how we will deliver them. We will be judged by results, not by the purity of our approach.
  I look forward to the conversion of my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) to the cause of decriminalisation of drugs, which I have advocated in this House for many years. We are not winning the war against drugs. My hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth), who is sitting on the Bench in front of me, used to be a Home Office Minister. He used to give what amounted to Government health warnings by saying that decriminalisation was not Government policy, but today I shall do it for him: the decriminalisation of drugs is not Government policy. However, I believe that we must be bold and radical when we consider the matter, and look at the whole range of issues involved.
  We are not winning the war against drugs. If it is true that 70 per cent, of all crime is associated with the supply and use of drugs, we ought to be deciding whether criminalisation is appropriate. I believe that it is not.
  Reference has been made to the yob culture. I shall not try to pinpoint the blame for its rise over recent years, but it represents a general breakdown in our society. I believe that we should consider a national community service scheme, and I hope to be able to advance that cause by means of a Bill later in this Parliament, so that I can explain more of my thinking on the matter.
  The Gracious Speech makes it clear that there will be another free vote on hunting. I hope that this time there will be no attempt to kick a Bill on the subject into the long grass. One cause of the low voter turnout at the election was cynicism. If we promise to do something and then do not do it, it will not be surprising if people become cynical and do not support us. I hope that we shall do what the House has said that it will do many times in the past—institute a ban on hunting. It is time for the Government to act and give hon. Members a chance to introduce such a ban.
  7.32 pm
  Mr. William Cash: I intend to address the House on the question of constitutional issues. Taking up the point made by the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks), I should make it clear that I believe that the most important matter facing the country and Parliament is the restoration of faith in politics.
  The constitution is the framework within which we are governed. Given that that framework is becoming increasingly eroded, how does it match up to the requirement that it must permit the British people to make decisions based on true democracy and accountability? That is the key question. For example, I believe that we should reverse the procedural changes that have been introduced to the guillotine procedure. A motion on that subject will be debated tomorrow. The changes will have a major effect on the debates on the Nice treaty.

  705
  We must restore the independence of Back-Bench Members. As I have said in two speeches in the past six months, that will require a reduction in the power of the Whips. In my judgment, such a reduction would have to be achieved by amending the Standing Orders. Anyone who cares to look at the two speeches to which I have referred will see that I made mention of what happened in 1886. I shall not go into that now, but that was when the Speaker's rules were transferred to the Executive. From that moment on, Back-Bench Members ceased to have the degree of control that they had enjoyed for centuries.
  I believe that there should be more independence for Select Committees. I am glad to have signed the motion circulating among hon. Members with regard to the report from the Select Committee on Liaison. That is a very important indicator of the direction in which the House has to move.
  We should examine, and probably remove, the rule that prevents civil servants from being cross-examined by Select Committees about the advice that they have given to Ministers. That is a difficult and delicate area, but the present rule precludes proper discussion about what is really going on.
  That problem is deeply related to another important matter—freedom of information. If we want a radical and proper examination of the interaction between voters and our constitution, we are bound to consider such matters and to arrive at conclusions in the very near future.
  We should enhance the power of the Comptroller and Auditor General. The selection of the Chairman and members of the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges should be taken away from the Executive. By definition, all scrutiny Committees should be chaired by Opposition Members. It is outrageous, for example, that the appointment of the Chairman of the Select Committee on European Scrutiny should be in the hands of the Government. The Committee was established in 1972, but only since the beginning of the previous Parliament has that power of appointment resided with the Executive.
  We must also reform the House of Lords by making it a far more elected Chamber, although I do not think that its entire membership needs to be elected. Of course, to prevent competition between the two Houses, the House of Lords' electoral cycle would have to be different from this House's, as would the areas represented. The necessary reform of the House and its procedures must be exciting and relevant, because we must bring them up to date. However, we must also maintain the House's essential democracy and accountability.
  My next point concerns matters outside the House. I consider it inconceivable that any leader of the Conservative party—the greatest of parties, which has had the honour to serve this country for the best part of two and a half centuries—should not be clear about who governs this country. Anything else is impossible to imagine, but it is clear, from remarks that have been made outside the Chamber, that some people do not understand what is a very simple matter. The question is not whether one is anti-European, but whether one is pro-democracy and pro-accountability.
  The problem is clear. After the Irish referendum, Mr. Romano Prodi went to Ireland to lecture people and tell them that they must hold another referendum because the earlier result had been undemocratic. I defy anyone—
  706
  in this House or in the country—to advocate allowing ourselves to be governed by such people. However, the truth is that we are already so governed, which is why the European treaties must be renegotiated. That is the only way to get the balance right. I am pro-democracy, and it is pro-European to be pro-democracy. It is ant-European to be anti-democracy. That message must be brought home to the electorate as a whole.
  People must be informed properly. The BBC rules on impartiality and on matters of major controversy, and the broadcasting legislation itself, must be examined. We must be sure that the relevant measures are interpreted and used in a way that benefits the people of this country as a whole. We must ensure, in the public interest, that people have a proper and impartial opportunity to acquire the information that they need. It is also important that the right questions be asked, which means that the necessary research processes in the relevant institutions must be enhanced.
  I will defend to the death free speech in newspapers or on radio and television. However, that freedom of speech must be based on the requirement that people be given proper and fair information on all matters.
  Furthermore, remarks made outside the House in the past 24 hours suggest that the Nice treaty should be allowed to go ahead. I want all the treaty elements covering the European Union looked at properly, because the EU impinges on the rights and privileges of Members of this House, and on the rights of those who vote for us. As I have said before, Parliament is not ours: it belongs to the British people, and hon. Members have no right to hand it over to anyone else.
  The natural consequence of the movement towards Europe that might take place under certain permutations of the policies held by those who want to lead the Conservative party is that Britain would not merely be subject to further integration, but would be absorbed into a European constitution. That constitution is in the offing, and I have predicted it for many years.
  In this regard, one has to ask certain constitutional questions about the Conservative party. First, let me quote Churchill on the truth. He said that one should tell the truth to the British people, and continued:
  "They are a tough people, a robust people. They may be offended at the moment, but if you have told them exactly what is going on you have insured yourself against complaints and protests which are very unpleasant when they come home, on the morrow of some disillusion."—[Official Report, 23 November 1932; Vol. 272, c. 87.]
  I believe that that is extremely relevant to what is going on in the Conservative party.
  The second point concerns what a political party is. In the words of Edmund Burke, a political party is a body of men—and, of course, women—
  "united for promoting by their joint endeavours the national interest upon some particular principle in which they are all agreed".
  It is impossible to reconcile the differences on this European issue and prevent the tensions and conflicts that are bound to follow from it if we try to create a false and impossible coalition. It will not work. To that extent, I agree with what my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) said in his statement yesterday. The issue needs to be brought out into the open. It is essential that we have a proper debate about the principle that Burke identified.

  707
  Disraeli said that the Tory party is a national party or it is nothing. That was the statement of one of our greatest Prime Ministers. It was not nationalistic—he meant the democratic nation state. That is the point. It is to do with the democracy and accountability that this constitutional arena—this House of Commons—represents. It needs improvement and reform, but that has to be measured and balanced. Only then will respect and faith in the British constitution and in this House of Commons be justified and be demonstrated—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman's time is up.
  7.42 pm
  Mr. Piara S. Khabra: It is interesting to speak after a Eurosceptic and anti-European fanatic. I do not share the views of the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) on the European issue.
  First, I offer my congratulations to the Secretary of State for the Home Department on his new role, although he is not in his seat. I hope that he will be as successful in the Home Office as he was in the former Department for Education and Employment.
  There is much detail to be filled in, but I broadly welcome the proposals in the Queen's Speech. However, I wish to concentrate on crime, as it is a subject that my constituents frequently raised with me during the election campaign.
  I hope that under my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, my constituency will continue to benefit from the improvements that took place under his predecessor, because improvements there certainly were. It goes without saying that prevention is better than cure, and in our first four years in office, we took great strides in tackling the causes of crime. In my constituency, the number of people on unemployment benefit has fallen by about 40 per cent, since 1997, and long-term youth unemployment had fallen by about 80 per cent, by February this year. I do not think that I am suggesting anything controversial when I say that providing people with jobs plays a fundamental part in reducing crime.
  My constituency has also benefited from the largest ever investment by the Home Office in CCTV security systems. The Ealing community safety and crime strategy group received money for schemes in Southall town centre—part of my constituency—and for a multi-storey car park. The total investment was more than £350,000; that money was provided over the past four years, and now we have to look forward. I believe that the Queen's Speech gives us much to look forward to. Certainly, there is still much to be done, but the agenda outlined in the Queen's Speech gives us an opportunity to continue what we started and to address the key concern of the electorate—improving public services.
  Reform of public services is at the heart of the Queen's Speech, and it is vital to keep the word "reform" clearly in mind. Let me however return to the issue of crime and how it affects my constituency. Although we have seen a 10 per cent, overall fall in crime since 1997, there are still many areas of concern for my constituents. For example, in spite of the fact that legislation has been passed banning handguns, some violent crimes are still rising.
  708
  Perhaps the greatest challenge facing those who live in my constituency is drugs. I have been greatly concerned about this and have held meetings with the local police and community members. Recent reports have highlighted the fact that drug abuse, particularly heroin abuse, is on the increase among young Asians, especially in Southall. In view of that, the Southall community drug education project has been conducting valuable research in conjunction with the university of Central Lancashire's ethnicity and health unit. The principle behind the research is that local people know their own needs best, which is why the Department of Health offered between £5,000 and £25,000 for local black and minority ethnic communities to undertake their own needs assessments.
  This local focus is part of the Government's 10-year strategy to tackle drug misuse, which has set tough targets, including halving the numbers of young people using illegal drugs and halving the availability of drugs on our streets. There have been a number of achievements in the past year, including the establishment of the drugs prevention advisory service and information from Ofsted indicating that 93 per cent, of secondary and 75 per cent, of primary schools now have a drugs education policy. I have checked with some of the high schools in my constituency that they are implementing the drugs education policy. Another achievement has been the launch of the positive futures programme, which uses money seized from drug traffickers to support sports and recreational projects and to build up young peoples' confidence so as to encourage them away from drugs and into healthier life styles.
  More needs to be done, however, to address this issue and the terrible consequences that it can have for communities. Findings from the Southall project suggest that the specific needs of many ethnic groups are not being addressed properly and that some minority groups, such as Somalis, are being left out of the loop of increasing awareness. I hope that time will be found in this Parliament to take this up further and to address the needs of individual communities.
  Tackling drug problems is not easy, as it is not possible to create a "one size fits all" solution. The Asian community, for example, encompasses a wide range of languages, cultures and religious faiths, as well as four generations who have lived in this country and have very different experiences. Thus what is good for one group may not be appropriate for another.
  The proposal in the manifesto for a drugs register to keep track of drugs traffickers is a start, and the continued emphasis on class A drugs makes sense. We must pick our fights carefully on this complicated issue.
  We must address demand as well as supply. Investment in the treatment of offenders is an intelligent approach and money well spent. Reduced demand will come about only through educating people in ways that address their local circumstances, and I hope that the Government will continue to invest in that goal.
  I would also like to take this opportunity to ask the Government to take further steps to deal with asylum seekers. My constituency has suffered from an influx of asylum seekers, which is putting a strain on community relations and public services in the area. An unacceptable extra burden is being placed on the already limited resources available and no extra money is being invested to improve the quality of life in my constituency.

  709
  During the election campaign, people raised a number of concerns with me, including the lack of amenities and sports facilities for the young, traffic congestion, and parking difficulties for the business community and others. There has also been a general deterioration in living standards in my constituency for many people, owing to the council's inability to invest in the areas of greatest need. If the area is supporting more people than it can cope with, it has every reason to demand that central Government provide more money to the local authority to redress the imbalance. The area of which I speak is predominantly an ethnic minority area; if neglected, it would reflect badly on the Government's record on race relations.
  I have every sympathy for those who are genuinely fleeing persecution, but it is essential that we improve the system of dealing with applications that have already been refused. There is no point in improving the speed of processing applications if people end up staying regardless of the decision of the Home Office. That only makes it harder for genuine applicants, who are then more likely to be resented by the community, which sees services overwhelmed by those who should have been removed. We need to be fairer and firmer in immigration and asylum policy.
  That said, I am sure that the Government will tackle those concerns, just as I am sure that they will continue to address the concerns of the electorate throughout the country. The people of Britain sent a clear signal during the election that our public services are the issue that is of most importance to them. People want—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman's time is up. I call the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Dodds).
  7.52 pm
  Mr. Nigel Dodds: First, I congratulate and pay tribute to all hon. Members who have made their maiden speeches today. I hope that I can live up to the high standard that they have set.
  It is a great honour for me to participate in this debate and to represent the people of Belfast, North in the House. They have done me the honour of electing me to Belfast city council and to the Northern Ireland Assembly, but it is a particular privilege and honour to be here as a Member of this House, the mother of Parliaments. I thank them for returning me with one of the largest swings recorded in Northern Ireland political history—reversing a 13,000 Ulster Unionist majority and turning it into a 6,300 majority for the Democratic Unionists.
  I pledge to my constituents—all my constituents—that I will work hard on their behalf and I assure them and the House that I will raise issues of concern to them and to the wider community in Northern Ireland, both in my representations to Ministers and on the Floor of the House.
  My predecessor, Cecil Walker, was a Member of this House for 18 years, serving from 1983 For any Member, it was a difficult task to represent a constituency in Northern Ireland through some of the worst years of violence, the troubles and civil unrest. It was even more so for a Member representing Belfast, North, which has borne a disproportionately high level of violence and deaths owing to terrorism throughout the troubles. I put
  710
  on record my appreciation of Cecil Walker's service and the sacrifice that he and his family made throughout those years. I wish him well in retirement.
  I have had the honour and privilege not only to know Cecil but to know other former Members who represented my constituency in this House. I can think of the late Johnny McQuade, who served here as a Democratic Unionist party member between 1979 and 1983—he was Cecil Walker's predecessor. I have fond memories of Johnny McQuade, who was an ex-Chindit, who served in Her Majesty's forces and was a Shankhill road man born and bred. I now have the honour to represent that area in the House. Johnny was a man of few words but of great integrity and dedication and I am honoured to follow in his footsteps and in those of other distinguished Members for Belfast, North.
  One such Member was Montgomery Hyde, who was the Unionist Member of Parliament for the constituency between 1950 and 1959. One of his great claims to fame was that he was the author of a book on the life of Sir Edward Carson, the founding father of Unionism. Sir Edward served in this House with great distinction and held high office—he was eventually elevated to the other place as Lord of Appeal in Ordinary and took the title of Lord Carson of Duncairn, which is part of my constituency. He represented the area with great distinction between 1918 and 1921.
  I am honoured to follow in the footsteps of the founding father of Unionism. At the time when Carson represented Belfast, North, Belfast in general and the constituency in particular were at the forefront of forging strong manufacturing and trading links with other parts of the United Kingdom and the world. The constituency has a rich and diverse historical, cultural, architectural and industrial heritage. It runs from Belfast city centre to the beautiful Cave Hill country park and the famous Cave Hill itself, which is synonymous with Belfast. Any visitor to the city cannot overlook that hill, which is part of my constituency.
  The constituency also takes in part of Newtownabbey borough council, which includes one of the largest housing estates in Europe—the Rathcoole estate. Some of the best known landmarks are contained within the constituency, such as Belfast cathedral, Belfast castle and other places of some notoriety, such as Crumlin Road jail. Some distinguished colleagues of mine have spent some time in that jail, but it is no longer a place that receives inmates.
  The area is known far and wide for its artistic creativity. I am glad at the way in which the local Departments at home and the council have worked to turn the cathedral quarter into an area where cultural and artistic activities are to be encouraged and promoted. Most of all, it is an area in which there are people who care passionately and deeply about their communities and who want to build a better future. I intend to give whatever assistance I can as long as they do me the honour of sending me to this House.
  Belfast, North is also known for many of the worst reasons. Hon. Members will be aware that, while there are the famous landmarks that I mentioned, there are many others that scar the area. It has the highest number of so-called peace walls of any constituency in Northern Ireland—walls mat divide communities for security purposes. We have lost more than 600 people in the

  711
  constituency as a result of terrorist violence. The area has seen widespread movement of populations and communities. It contains some of the worst areas of economic and social deprivation in Northern Ireland, and I dare say in the entire kingdom.
  My job, in partnership with other people, is to try to put things right—that was our manifesto pledge to the people of Belfast, North—and that means not only the political and constitutional issues but the economic and social issues that affect our constituents so deeply.
  I come to the House with a clear mandate not only as a Unionist—which I am and I am proud to be—but as a campaigning Member of the House, to work for the social and economic betterment of all my constituents.
  Of the 20 most deprived wards in Northern Ireland, six are in north Belfast. In Crumlin ward, which is predominantly Protestant, 25.9 per cent, of people are short-term unemployed and 11.6 per cent, are long-term unemployed, compared with an average in Northern Ireland of 9.3 and 4.2 per cent, respectively. In the New Lodge ward, which is predominantly and overwhelmingly nationalist and Roman Catholic, 62 per cent, of households are in receipt of housing benefit, compared with a Northern Ireland average of 24 per cent. Those figures highlight the levels of deprivation and social need—problems which have been exacerbated by and have undoubtedly been a contributory factor in the high levels of violence and terrorism that the constituency has witnessed over the past 30 years.
  I sought election to the House because I believe in the need to bring regeneration and renewal in place of decline and deprivation, in the form of more jobs, better training and skills provision, better housing, provision for our young people, better education, better health provision, and a better and cleaner environment. That is what people, whether they are Protestant or Roman Catholic, whatever their background, are demanding; it is what they deserve.
  Progress is being made, but Members will be aware of the current problems in my constituency. Members will be aware that in recent days we have again seen street confrontation, violence, the police out having to defend communities—even the Army having to be called in to give back-up to the Royal Ulster Constabulary. Yesterday I had the sad task of having to stand in a local Presbyterian church in my constituency that has been the target of arsonists, as has a Roman Catholic chapel in a neighbouring constituency.
  All those attacks are deplorable, and I hope that the talks that are going on between communities to try to resolve these issues will be successful. However, people I meet in my constituency repeatedly ask me why, when in other parts of the United Kingdom there is a demand for more policing—more policemen and women on the beat—in Northern Ireland the police service is being demoralised and decimated and its numbers reduced as a result of the implementation of the Patten proposals, under the terms of the Belfast agreement.
  The hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) mentioned the yob culture. Other Members have spoken about increasing crime. In north Belfast and other parts of the Province, we have a continuing terrorist threat. We have so-called dissidents perpetrating violence. We have all the problems of antisocial behaviour and crime that
  712
  other constituencies have, made even worse because of paramilitary influence. And yet, uniquely, our police service has been cut. The numbers have been cut from 13,000 to 7,000. We have large-scale demoralisation and high levels of sickness.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. The hon. Gentleman has had his time allocation.
  8.2 pm
  Joan Ruddock: I congratulate the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Dodds) on that very considered speech, in which he reminded us not only of the magnificence of the city in which he has his constituency, but of its many areas of deprivation—which I understand well, as I come from a very deprived community myself—and the need to address all these problems, and to do so regardless of the allegiances of the people of those areas. I thank him very much for that speech. I hope that he will enjoy his time in this place; that he will make a contribution, as he has done tonight, to our debates; and that he will take up the many opportunities that he will be offered. I thank him for the generous tributes that he paid to his predecessors.
  I welcome my right hon. Friends to their new positions and congratulate the Home Secretary on a very considered speech. The subject of today's debate is home affairs and constitution, and I hope that, after many excellent speeches on law and order, the House will give me its indulgence when I raise an issue that I consider to be of extreme constitutional importance; the democratic deficit that we have in the House as a result of the selection processes of our political parties.
  This first Parliament of the 21st century is more than 82 per cent. male. The shadow Chancellor was right when he said this week:
  "The proportion of women here is too low…In my party, the under-representation by women is truly chronic."—[Official Report, 25 June 2001; Vol. 370. c. 404.]
  I welcome the commitment made in the Queen's Speech to give parties the right to take positive action to increase women's representation in the House. Last year, I introduced a ten-minute Bill to amend the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, in an effort to free political parties from the tribunal decision in the Jepson case, which found that the employment section of the Sex Discrimination Act applied to Members of Parliament. Since that time, an in-depth analysis has been carried out by Meg Russell of the constitution unit based at University College London, and a timely paper on international comparisons has been produced, which I recommend to my right hon. Friends.
  In this country, we are lagging far behind our European partners in increasing women's representation and in legislating to enable political parties to take appropriate action. Those who opposed my amendment to the SDA frequently argued that even if United Kingdom equality law were amended, positive action in selection, such as all-women shortlists, would fall foul of European Union equal treatment law or the European convention on human rights. I believe that a study of other positive action measures in other European countries gives the lie to these criticisms.
  Sweden, with a Parliament 43 per cent, composed of women Members, heads the list of European democracies in terms of women's representation. The UK has slipped

  713
  to No. 33 in that list. In Sweden, being a candidate is not regarded—as I believe it cannot be here, either—as a contract of employment. It is a position of trust. In the early 1990s, women in Sweden threatened to start an all-woman party. Nothing could be more of a spur to the political parties to put their own houses in order. As a consequence, the Social Democratic party adopted positive action in candidate selection. Other parties followed, with the result that 44 per cent. of Members of Parliament elected in 1994 were women. At no time has there been any challenge in domestic, EU or human rights legislation to the positive action adopted by the majority of political parties in Sweden.
  Norway has a similar record. Positive action to increase women's representation has been used for the past 10 years. The majority of parties adopted a rule of at least 40 per cent, women to be selected, and currently, 36 per cent, of the Parliament is made up of women. Again, there has been no legal challenge.
  Germany and France present equally useful case histories. In Germany, quotas have been adopted ranging from 30 per cent, in the Conservative CDU to 50 per cent, in the German Socialist party. As a consequence of those measures, women constitute 31 per cent, of the German Parliament. Again, there has been no legal challenge in Europe or under human rights law. But France presents the most striking case of radical action. All attempts to legislate for positive action for women failed in France over many years as a result of the objections of France's Constitutional Council, leaving the French Parliament with a mere 10 per cent, women. However, three years ago the French constitution had to be amended to take account of the new equality clauses of the Amsterdam treaty. As a consequence, positive action became enshrined in law, opening the way for a new electoral law requiring equality in selection.
  In local elections carried out since the election law was passed last year, the proportion of women rose from 22 per cent, to 48 per cent. Parties can be debarred from election, and lose state funding, if they do not comply with the strict 50:50 equality law. Because there is so much ground to make up in France, the French Socialist party has proposed that in places where women were candidates in 1997, only women will be selected, and that in all seats where MPs are retiring, only women will be eligible to be candidates.
  I give these examples to demonstrate how very modest is the Government's proposal to legislate to allow, but not require, political parties to take positive action in selection to redress gender imbalance.
  Julie Morgan: Does my hon. Friend agree that great progress has been made in this country in setting up the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Parliament? A positive mechanism was used by a political party to ensure that the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Parliament have some of the best representation of women in Europe. In fact, there are more women than men in the Cabinet of the Welsh Assembly.
  Joan Ruddock: I thank my hon Friend for her intervention. She is absolutely right, of course. The difficulty was that that was a one-off mechanism. The selection of women has fallen back since then, and we need to return to the point that she so rightly describes.
  714
  If the French measures that I have mentioned were adopted here, there would be rioting in our constituency parties and some hon. Gentlemen would adopt a policy of never retiring. Action is urgent. The progress made by the Labour party, which my hon. Friend has just outlined, in adopting twinning and all-women short lists before 1997 has been abruptly halted as my party's membership has reverted to type in the selections for the general election. Other parties in the House have made little or no progress, with the notable exception of the parties in Northern Ireland, which have returned three women after a gap of 30 years.
  On present trends, it would take more than 30 years to reach parity in the House. That is absolutely unacceptable. Time is of the essence. It is likely that the selection of candidates for the next general election will begin in 2003, making legislation in this Session a necessity for those parties that will need to present rule changes to their annual conferences in 2002.
  No one disputes that there are men in this House who have championed women's interests, but men cannot bring a woman's perspective to the whole range of political concerns. Women Members contribute to the House through different life experiences and from different perspectives. Furthermore, women voters believe that women Members of Parliament better understand the realities of women's lives. Perhaps if the House were more representative, in gender and colour, of our contemporary society, we might make an impact on voter apathy. I urge my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to introduce legislation to allow positive action in the selection of candidates as soon as possible, and I ask the official Opposition to make it very clear that they will support that legislation when it is debated in the House.
  8.12 pm
  Mr. James Paice: I want to concentrate on constitutional issues, especially on one that has been raised by several hon. Members—the sadly low turnout at the general election.
  First, I want to note the fact that the Gracious Speech refers to consultations on further reforms to the House of Lords. It seems clear that the Government do not know how to proceed to stage 2 of House of Lords reform. Despite the warnings, which we in the Conservative party issued four years ago, that stage I should not be implemented until stage 2 was agreed, the Government went ahead, as they have done so many times, in an arrogant way, removing most of the hereditary peers and replacing them with their own Labour party cronies. More Labour life peers have been appointed in four years than Conservative life peers were appointed in 18 years. That demonstrates the need for a significant change in attitude.
  The Government have the effrontery to suggest that the present arrangements are somehow better and more democratic than those that preceded them. The Prime Minister has consistently opposed the granting of honours for political work. It is a moot point as to whether that it right or wrong. Yet having made that announcement over and again, the Prime Minister has used peerages as a currency to buy vacancies in safe Labour constituencies to put in his own appointed men—often those who have crossed the Floor of the House from another party.
  I congratulate those Labour Members who have refused to be bought in that way, and I respect their integrity, but that is just one aspect of an arrogant attitude to power that

  715
  goes much further in snubbing convention and tradition. The Parliament Acts were improperly invoked during the previous Parliament, yet barely a murmur was raised against that. Even the Chancellor, in his petty way, continues to refuse to wear the appropriate dress for his Mansion House speech. [Interruption.]The fact that Labour Members think that irrelevant is precisely my point. It is not irrelevant; it is not only a gesture of the Government's arrogance to be different, but it is downright bad manners not to accommodate the wishes of one's hosts in attending any function. That is one more example of how the Government's arrogance of power shows itself.
  As several hon. Members have said, there has been an absolute abandonment of any semblance of accountability to Parliament. That has largely been achieved with the connivance of supine Back Benchers. I do not pretend for a moment that that all started in 1997; it did not, but it has certainly grown inexorably worse under the Labour Government.
  The constitution may not be a popular political issue, but from the Government's attitude to it, we can divine their attitude to anyone who takes a contrary view on any of their policies. Indeed, not only will they not enter into reasoned debate, but they will often not even recognise the fact that there is an issue to debate. Other hon. Members have mentioned the West Lothian question, yet the Government firmly refuse to accept that there is an issue, let alone consider how to address it. So is it any wonder that the electorate are increasingly cynical about politicians and that so few people voted three weeks ago. The election result was disastrous not only for my party, but for democracy and even for the Labour party, which, despite the translation into seats, obtained 3 million-odd votes fewer than before.
  I want to concentrate for a moment on the Opposition and on my party's role. My party has to regain its standing with the electorate, not just to win power—important as that may be—but to restore its credibility as an Opposition in the meantime. True parliamentary democracy needs a credible and robust Opposition, but it also needs an end to permanent confrontation. It is no wonder that the public are disillusioned when all that they hear is our criticising each other, rather than having reasoned debates. If there were ever any doubt in my mind that that was the public's view, it was removed on the doorsteps of my constituency during the election. Over and again, the people of Britain demanded a new style of non-confrontational politics.
  What can my party do to restore public interest in Parliament and in our democracy? I have always believed that the Conservative party's principles represent the natural, gut instincts of the British people. That is why I am a Conservative, and it seems that the Prime Minister agrees, which explains his rhetoric. Of course, the reality is that what he does totally belies his rhetoric, but the rhetoric seeks to appeal to the same gut instinct.
  I recall my first job as a full-time employee. When I was 17,I worked on a farm with a large number of other farm workers. They thought that it was not worth working overtime because of the tax that they would have to pay. I know full well from our discussions that they all voted Labour, as did millions of other manual workers, because they thought that the socialism on offer would look after them. However, beneath the surface, they were
  716
  red-blooded capitalists who sought profit from a deal and a reward for their efforts. If we listen to the Government, we are all capitalists now, but the seam of Conservative principles goes much deeper into the hearts and minds of the British people.
  Our party has consistently stood for the rule of law and the maintenance of order, regardless of provocation or even sympathy with the cause. The Conservative party truly believes in choice and has sought to provide it in office. We believe in individual responsibility, not just to make decisions in the expectation that the state will help, but one in which people accept that if they get it wrong, they must accept the consequences. There are many other ways in which the Conservative party's principles go deep into the instincts and inheritance of the British people. Our challenge is to make people understand that. I know that that is of little consequence to Labour Members. Indeed, many of them will disagree with what I say, but ultimately what is right for my party is right for democracy and for the standing of politics in this country.
  The Conservative party has always recognised our responsibility to help others. Not for nothing did it used to be said that the Church of England was the Conservative party at prayer. In those days, Conservatives ran local charities and gave their services to the communities and sought nothing in return. Yet after all that, we have allowed ourselves to be seen as a different type of party—a party of hard men; selfish, dogmatic and greedy. None of those things is true, but it is hardly surprising that we are seen that way when we do not explain our principles; when we do not explain that lowering rates of tax can often increase tax yield. If we are worried about funding public services, it is tax yields rather than tax rates that matter.
  We allow our views on Europe to be portrayed as polarised or isolationist, rather than spelling out the vision that I described in the House some years ago of a kaleidoscope of nations working together but each retaining their identity. When we talk about public services, we sometimes sound as if they are for other people, whereas in reality the vast majority of Conservatives, like myself, use the state education system and national health service. I believe that people expect from our public services quality, a service free at the point of use and a service that is reasonably convenient.
  No one other than those wedded to socialism really cares who owns the bricks and mortar or who pays the nurses and teachers. It is the quality and availability of the service that matters. That is why the debate about privatisation is obsolete. The debate is not about selling off or charging but about the means of delivering a service to the general public. The Conservative Government began to move down the road of making available a range of provision which included the role of charities and religious bodies. Despite the rhetoric of the past few days—we heard it again this afternoon—much of that provision has been removed by the Labour Government.
  The Conservative party will not redeem itself by trying to turn the clock back or by explaining our policies more clearly. We need to re-engage with the people of this country. My party has its part to play in restoring the status of politics and politicians. That is essential for my party's interests, but not just for us as a—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has had his time allocation.
  8.23 pm
  Mr. Wayne David: I rise to make my first contribution in this House conscious of the fact that, as the Member of Parliament for Caerphilly, I am part of a long Labour tradition. My immediate predecessor was Ron Davies, a former Secretary of State for Wales. He made a huge contribution to the achievement of Welsh devolution.
  Other former Members of Parliament for Caerphilly include Mr. Fred Evans, who was the Member from 1968 when he won a famous by-election until 1979. His predecessor was Mr. Ness Edwards, a famous miners leader in south Wales and the author of a scholarly book on the history of the South Wales Miners Federation. He rose to become Postmaster-General. He reflected the coal-dominated reality of south Wales better than anyone else I can think of.
  Today, south Wales is very different and so is the Caerphilly constituency. Coal has given way to a more diverse economy. Now manufacturing is king and probably as many of Caerphilly's work force are employed outside the constituency as within it. That is not to say that we do not have the legacy of coal; there are still coal tips in the constituency that need to be removed. The award of compensation to miners and their widows must be speeded up and paid as quickly as possible.
  As the Caerphilly constituency responds to a changing world, new priorities emerge and fresh issues come to the fore. In the southern part of the constituency—the area dominated by Caerphilly town—we have a town which is famous for its cheese and its huge, magnificent 13th century castle. That town is an important tourist attraction with huge potential, which will be fulfilled only if we preserve the countryside around Caerphilly mountain and further east towards the village of Machen.
  At the same time, in the northern part of the constituency—an area that gave inspiration to the artist Lowry in the 1960s—there is an urgent need for the Bargoed bypass. It is needed to relieve traffic congestion in the town and bring economic regeneration to the upper part of the Rhymney valley. Infrastructure and economic development initiatives are particularly important now in the Caerphilly county borough area due to job losses at Corus in nearby Llanwern and elsewhere. Yes, unemployment is at an all time low, but there is a need for more to be done.
  Of common concern to all parts of my constituency, north and south, is the need for a new hospital. We must act so that potential and actual patients in the constituency and county borough need not have to travel long distances for medical treatment. It is unacceptable that my constituents have to travel to Cardiff, Newport or Merthyr Tydfil when it is widely acknowledged that a new hospital is needed in the borough. I hope that progress can be made on that in the near future.
  I shall work closely on those issues with the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, my hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Mr. Touhig), and my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Havard), who both represent parts of the Caerphilly county borough and share my philosophy and priorities. They both believe that there is a need for an increased emphasis on better and more effective policing.
  We have seen recent improvements in the crime figures in the Caerphilly area, but there is real concern about drug-related crime and increasing antisocial behaviour.
  718
  I am convinced that the Government here in London and the National Assembly for Wales are correct in tackling the underlying social factors behind crime. There is a direct correlation between social deprivation and the incidence of crime. I welcome the support given to young people by the National Assembly through the publication of its policy statement "Extending Entitlement". I say that as someone who has worked for the past two years for the youth service in Wales.
  There is also a need to make policing more effective. That is why I warmly welcome the proposed legislation to take action against money laundering so that recovery of the proceeds of crime and drug dealing is easier. We also need greater police co-operation across police force boundaries. However, there is no ducking the fact that the police forces in Wales need more resources.
  Gwent police, for example, suffers from the deployment of an obtuse funding formula. It needs a fairer funding formula to give it, perhaps, £150,000 a year extra. That money is needed to tackle crime in the areas of greatest deprivation in the south Wales valleys. The previous Home Office Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), promised to review that formula and I hope that his replacement will realise that commitment.
  I am privileged to serve as the Member of Parliament for Caerphilly. I thank the people of my constituency for the trust that they have placed in me and my local party for its support. I was a Member of the European Parliament for 10 years. That experience has made me a committed European and internationalist. David Williams was one of the most famous sons of Caerphilly. We have heard much about Edmund Burke, but David Williams was a friend of Thomas Paine. He argued forcefully in the 1780s and 1790s for democracy, liberty and freedom. He helped to draft the first French constitution and in 1792 was made an honorary citizen of the new French republic. I cannot hope to follow David Williams's achievements, but I hope to reflect his internationalism and integrity through the way in which I represent the people of Caerphilly.
  8.30 pm
  Derek Conway: It is a great pleasure to follow the maiden speech of the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. David), on which I congratulate him. He spoke with confidence and passion and is clearly a very decent representative for his constituency. His speech will stand him in good stead and we wish him well. As a retread, I do not suppose that my contribution counts as a maiden—I am not sure that it is possible to be a virgin twice.
  When my service in the House was rudely interrupted in 1997, I left the Chamber as a Government Whip. I went on to become chief executive of the Cats Protection League, which is Britain's largest and oldest cat welfare charity. It is the most amazing organisation and helps 165,000 cats a year, has 79,000 members and sites and groups in 280 constituencies. One of its main aims is the neutering of cats. Some of my more cruel friends suggested that as a Government Whip I had gone from neutering Members of Parliament to neutering cats. I always argued that it was a good process for both species because it stops them wandering.
  It is a great pleasure and honour to represent Old Bexley and Sideup. Although it is a south-east London borough, emotionally it remains part of Kent. Some

  719
  85 per cent, of my constituents are home owners and we are blessed with excellent grammar, community and primary schools, which is part of the reason why so many people choose to make their homes in that wonderful constituency.
  My constituents were, of course, served for 51 years by Sir Edward Heath, who was Father of the House and a former Prime Minister. Perhaps less known to hon. Members is the fact that he was also a colonel in the Royal Artillery during the second world war and gave distinguished service to his country in every respect. Sir Edward held controversial views on the European Union, but at least he always had the courage and tenacity to stick by them. In 1985,I was one of 12 Members who voted in defiance of Mrs. Thatcher's three-line Whip on the Single European Act. I thought that that demonstrated some courage, although I did not get a medal for it; instead, I was made to spend even more time on the Back Benches.
  Despite our different views on the future of Europe, Sir Edward was a extraordinarily decent Member to follow. Although I am a bit cynical after 33 years in active politics about the size of a personal vote that a Member of Parliament accrues, I found on the doorsteps of Old Bexley and Sidcup that Sir Edward was held in the deepest affection and the greatest respect. It will be an enormous challenge to follow his service in the House.
  In supporting the Conservative amendment to the Gracious Speech, I want to highlight the problem of police numbers. The notifiable offences rate in the borough of Bexley increased by 19 per cent, last year. Although it is a tranquil and lovely place to live, crime is of great concern to my constituency. The Bexley division of the Metropolitan police force is an extremely able and talented service, but it is considerably undermanned. It has fewer than half the number of police officers for an average London borough of our type. Just before the general election campaign was announced, the division was pleased when Mayor Livingstone—no doubt to help some of those whom he hopes to rejoin in the fullness of time—announced an extra 20 police officers for it. Sadly, 10 were taken away to form the serious crime group, which investigates murder. In Old Bexley and Sidcup and in the London borough of Bexley in general it is highly unlikely that anyone will be murdered, but it is likely that people will suffer from vandalism, burglary or car theft, and those crimes require the evidence of a police officer in the area.
  Sidcup high street is struggling to survive as a retail centre against an enormous problem of vandalism. Its residents were disappointed that the Home Office did not agree to the closed circuit television application that the town made in the recent round. Vandalism is a problem and retailers are struggling. Part of my campaign will be to press the Home Office Minister responsible to reconsider that decision.
  It is not only the major centres that have to deal with that problem: shops in the Oval have been frequently vandalised. It was bad enough that they suffered from paint spraying, but the little monsters have got used to using glass cutters so that they can make their presence permanently felt. Struggling to meet the demands of
  720
  both central and local government in a hostile retail environment in which there is vandalism makes earning a living very difficult. Those traders are struggling.
  It is not good enough to say that those who commit such crimes need more counselling or help. The victims of those crimes have lost patience with that approach. It does not matter whether one sits in this Chamber as a Conservative, Labour or Liberal Democrat Member, or as a member of any other party, the fact is that victims of crime in our constituencies are fed up. It will take parties of all persuasions to have the courage to finance the police service properly and to get policemen back on the beat.
  It is very good to be back in this Chamber; it has been gratifying to have been welcomed by members of all parties. Those who lose their seats will find it a very cold experience. One of my tasks now that I am back is not to rest until I am sure that the constituents of Old Bexley and Sidcup are far better protected by a better-manned police service than at present.
  8.35 pm
  Mr. George Howarth: I congratulate the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Derek Conway) on what, as he said, is probably not his maiden speech. From listening to him, I can tell that he has lost none of the good humour for which I knew him in his previous incarnation in the House. One thing that always struck me about Ted Heath was the extent to which, no matter his achievements in this House, as Prime Minister, on the international stage or domestically, he gave the impression, which the hon. Gentleman has just confirmed, that he was an assiduous constituency Member of Parliament. That speaks well not only of Ted Heath but of the hon. Gentleman who has picked up that baton. I am sure that he will run with it in the appropriate manner.
  I want briefly to comment on the James Bulger case and events of last week, to which the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary referred in their opening speeches. Denise Fergus and Ralph Bulger are both my constituents. None of us has the imagination really to appreciate what they have gone through over the years as the parents involved in losing a child in such horrendous circumstances. My heart goes out to them, and I am sure that everyone in the House shares that sentiment.
  It is unwise for politicians to try to second-guess the decisions of the parole board or, for that matter, of those in the Home Office who have had to be party to those decisions, if not make them themselves. I say that for the simple reason that I have not had sight—nor would it be appropriate for me to do so—of the reports prepared on the two young men concerned. To comment without the knowledge and understanding of what has happened to them and where they stand now would therefore be unfair.
  I want to make two points in the remaining time available to me, the first of which is to do with policing. I certainly welcome the target of 6,000 additional police officers that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary reaffirmed in his opening speech. Most people in my constituency and, indeed, across the country will welcome that target. Although it may be important to increase the number of police available, what we do with those additional police officers is also important—how they are organised and how they address the problems of crime faced by many of our constituents.

  721
  The major problem experienced in my constituency can exist in all sorts of different communities, and not always just in areas that are unstable in some way or suffer great social and economic deprivation. My constituency is very mixed. There are rural parts, parts known in classic sociological jargon as C1 and C2, and there is Kirkby, which comprises a series of council estates. The problem is low-level street crime—which I consider an inappropriate description—or crime and disorder. Previous Home Office Ministers, my right hon. Friends the Members for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) and for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Alun Michael), had a new vision of how to deal with such problems and they gave the police and local authorities some useful tools for doing so, but I believe that that solid foundation must now be built on by reviewing the method of policing, revisiting the punishments available and adopting new and innovative approaches.
  On Merseyside, the chief constable has now reorganised his police force in such a way as to put policemen back on to the streets. He has used the existing wards structure and allocated a number of officers— usually an inspector, two sergeants and 20 policemen—to a defined geographical area. That is their patch, which they work mostly on foot. The Home Office is monitoring the progress of that development. It is not the only story— other parts of Merseyside's police force are tackling other problems—but it is a useful start that deserves our support. We should keep a close eye on Merseyside, because developments there may well serve as models for the future.
  I should like to make a plea to the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Angela Eagle). Merseyside police authority and the chief constable are taking a risk. Although I believe that they will address the problems as people experience them on the street, they might find themselves in conflict with the key performance indicators that Merseyside police force is supposed to meet. While enhancing people's quality of life, they may well fail to meet those performance indicators. It would be wrong if they were penalised for having the courage to act to meet the public agenda.
  We need to consider ways in which the police and the criminal justice system can address offending behaviour very early on in a criminal career. The youngster in my constituency who is throwing a brick through a bus window tonight is a nuisance, and a dangerous one at that, but five years down the line he—it usually is a he—could be the local drugs baron, a house burglar or car thief, or committing even more serious crimes. Stopping youngsters early in their criminal career and giving the police and the courts proper remedies to break into the spiral towards ever more serious offences are among the most useful things that we can do. I should like to suggest two things that might help. I do not pretend that they are easy, that they will require no resources, or that I have a fully worked out plan for delivering, but they deserve serious consideration.
  First, there is a role in the process for fixed penalties. I know that when my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister suggested that some time ago, the response was derision, but a fixed penalty gives the offender the chance to acknowledge the crime and have it dealt with quickly, and it may provide the early warning that a person needs to stop him doing something worse. That will work for some
  722
  people, but not for others. There is no system in place for it, so it will not happen quickly. Secondly, an early custodial sentence— perhaps for people as young as 12 or 14 if additional resources are created within the prison estate—might be the wake-up call that is needed to stop youngsters developing their criminal career any further.
  When opening the debate, my right hon. Friend invited new ideas and said that they would be welcome. I offer those two new ideas to my colleagues in the Home Office.
  In conclusion, if we do not start to address so-called low-level disorder and street crime early in people's offending careers, and if we do not stop the drift that seems to be the norm in some areas, we will reap the whirlwind in years to come. I believe that the problem can be addressed, and that the Home Secretary has the will to do so. There will probably be a consensus in the House in favour of measures that start to address it effectively.
  8.45 pm
  John Thurso: I am grateful for the opportunity to make my maiden speech in the House, especially in a debate touching on the constitution.
  I should like to preface my remarks with an expression of gratitude to the House and a pre-emptive apology. My gratitude is for the introduction and passing of the House of Lords Act 1999, which permitted me to shake off the shackles of the peerage and return to being a normal human being and enabled me to fulfil a long-held dream of seeking election to the House of Commons. My pre-emptive apology concerns the fact that, having sat in another place for a number of years, I observed former Members of the House of Commons taking up a seat there, and saw the difficulty that they had throwing off the habit of addressing colleagues as hon. Gentlemen. If, by mischance, I address the Chair as "my Lord" or refer to any Member as "noble", I ask the House to understand that I mean no disrespect; it is merely old habits coming through.
  It is the tradition—and, for me, a particular pleasure—to pay tribute to the one's predecessor. It is a great pleasure because the former Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross is a great personal friend; Robert Maclennan served in the House for just over 35 years and made many major contributions. He led one party for a short time and helped to co-found the Liberal Democrat party. In the previous Parliament, with the then Leader of the House, he was responsible for the report that allowed much of the constitutional legislation that was introduced to go through. However, he is most remembered by all those who know him for his extraordinary assiduity as a constituency Member. Having knocked on many doors during the election campaign, as many other hon. Members will have done, I found out just how hard he worked and how many people spoke of him with affection. Indeed, only 24 hours before the election, he was with me, knocking on doors and collecting more casework, which he took great pleasure in handing over to me in recent weeks.
  As we got to know each other well, Robert Maclennan told me that he would never have stood for or sought election in any other constituency. I share that view; I would never have wished to seek election in any constituency other than my home of Caithness, Sutherland

  723
  and Easter Ross. It is an extraordinarily large and varied constituency. I am not sure whether it is the largest; I think that that honour belongs to my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West (Mr. Kennedy), but my constituency is a close second. When I drive home from Inverness airport and cross the constituency boundary, I can see a sign telling me that I have 91 miles to go until I get home; there is therefore a large geographical area to cover.
  My constituency not only has geographic variety, but great economic variety. We have new industries, such as Dounreay, the former fast-breeder reactor plant, which is in the process of being decommissioned and has a genuine opportunity to become a world centre of excellence in decommissioning skills that we can export to other countries. At the other end of the constituency in Invergordon are some of the major players in rig refurbishment, looking after the oil industry. Many new businesses have recently come in; we have the largest manufacturer of chest freezers in the world, and we have the company that produces all of Madonna's cassettes. Much in the constituency, therefore, is surprising.
  The backbone of the constituency—the heart of it—remains the rural traditional industries of farming and fishing, and to those I would nowadays add tourism. These are all industries that are in considerable trouble.
  The fishing industry is in severe crisis. There is a major problem of balancing fish stocks and fishing effort, and I look forward to an opportunity to bring the matter before the House on another occasion.
  Farming in my constituency, as in many others, is the glue that holds together many of the rural areas. The entire fabric of, for example, remote parts of Sutherland is held together by farming and crofting.
  The recent foot and mouth crisis has had a terrible effect. Happily, my constituency has not had the problems of those where large slaughters have had to take place. None the less, the future seems very difficult, particularly with the tradition within the constituency of rearing stock for transfer to other areas of the country. I look forward to bringing both these matters before the House.
  I ask for the indulgence of the House to speak briefly on tourism. I must declare an interest. I am still involved with a number of tourist businesses. I am also patron or president of several industry bodies. Tourism is the industry in which I grew up. I started my working life in the kitchens of the Berkeley, and I did day release at Westminster college. I worked my way up through that industry.
  Tourism, as a result of foot and mouth, is having a difficult time. It can be seen from the extent of the crisis what an impact the tourist industry has. It is one of the largest employers. According to the Government's figures, it produces about 7 per cent, of national gross domestic product. It needs to be properly supported and resourced. I hope very much that the Department for Culture, Media and Sport will ensure that resources are made available to encourage overseas tourists, through the British Tourist Authority, to come to the United Kingdom.
  I turn to reform of the House of Lords. I was delighted to read in the Gracious Speech that the Government intend to go ahead with stage 2 of the reform, which I warmly
  724
  welcome, but I have two concerns. The first is about the words "after consultation". I hope that that will not mean that reform disappears into the long grass and that what comes out at the end is a somewhat more anodyne reform. I believe absolutely—this is said with the conviction of having sat in another place—that there is only one outcome, and that is for the House of Lords to be either fully elected, or in large part elected.
  My second concern is that reform will perhaps be predicated too much on the Wakeham report. One of the key elements of that report is the assumption that the House should always retain its superiority or supremacy over the other place, which is dangerous. As a number of hon. Members have said, it is important that the House takes the opportunity to consider the functions of not only another place but of this place, and to regard reform as a marriage of two equal partners. Both Houses have different roles and should have different roles, but the roles are complementary. I believe that ultimately the two Houses should be fundamentally equal.
  I have come to serve in this place with immense humility and respect for its traditions. Having sat in another place and having had the good fortune to go through an election. I understand, despite the aversion that one has to being on green, how important it is, and what a great mother of Parliaments it is. I look forward to serving my constituents, to whom I am immensely grateful, to the best of my ability and to making what modest contribution I can to the workings of the House.
  8.49 pm
  Mr. Parmjit Dhanda: First, I congratulate the new hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso) on an excellent speech. It was probably made that much tougher because my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) had already accused him of being a dead ringer for Lord Lucan. The hon. Gentleman's speech was very well done.
  When we sit on these Benches during the course of a day we might sometimes wonder whether it is all worth while. It has been worth while for me already, having today sat next to my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones), a new Member, for the past six hours. I feel as if I know North Durham extremely well now. I look forward to returning to Gloucester and perhaps talking about a twinning arrangement between our two constituencies.
  In all seriousness, it gives me great pleasure to be called to make my maiden speech at the very end of the debate on the Queen's Speech, which for my party marks the beginning of a second full term in office—the first in our history.
  Many of the measures in the Queen's Speech enshrine changes for which my predecessor, Tess Kingham, campaigned in her four years as Member for Gloucester. It is a fitting tribute to her that, as we work to create health and education systems that we can all be proud of, the children of Gloucester are excelling, school standards are rising and my constituents are to benefit from a £30 million new hospital development on which work has already begun. It is just one of many exciting new developments in Gloucester over the next 10 years. The building blocks have been laid for a new college of higher education; a state-of-the-art tennis centre is soon to be joined by one of the region's finest new leisure centres;

  725
  and, with the input of public and private capital, ambitious plans are afoot to transform our town centre and historic docks.
  Gloucester is well on its way to becoming a modern city of commerce, leisure and employment opportunity— a city fit for life in the 21st century. Yet it is a city steeped in history, having been built on the Roman town of Glevum more than 900 years ago As one of only three cities to have hosted a coronation, Gloucester has seen many changes down the years.
  When we talk of change, modernisation and renewal, we touch base with many of the issues that were of particular importance to my predecessor in the House. It is no secret that she ultimately became quite frustrated by the pace of change or, as she would say, the slowness of change in institutions such as the House of Commons and some of the jousting that goes with it, although I am sure that she would not want the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) to take to heart her comments in The Guardian last week.
  As we debate the Queen's speech, my mind goes back to an occasion during the election campaign, just a few weeks ago, when we were visited by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, who was then Home Secretary. My local newspaper, The Citizen, and the people of Gloucester are delighted by the changes to the criminal justice system proposed in the Queen's Speech, but when my right hon. Friend visited Gloucester, he expressed particular concern about the sentences that were being handed out to dealers of addictive hard drugs such as crack and heroin, which are as much a problem in Gloucester as they are in many other cities.
  If we are to build the society that we want, it is imperative that we tackle dealers in hard drugs and I am pleased that my right hon. Friend the new Home Secretary has already said that it will be one of his priorities. I shall be writing to my right hon. Friend supporting The Citizen's campaign to ensure that judges are consistent in their sentencing and urging him to look at the possibility of monitoring judges and making them more accountable in sentencing people who commit the particularly vile crime of pushing hard drugs.
  I am all too happy to support my local paper's campaign, but like many hon. Members, I am fully aware of the fickleness of the media and, occasionally, their attitude towards politicians, for it was the same newspaper that, some months ago, struggled to come to terms with my role as the Labour candidate in Gloucester.
  In his eloquent speech last week, my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Lammy) summed up some of the difficulties that I am likely to face. He said that he is never anonymous in the House and nor am I. In my case, it is likewise in my constituency. It is not down to being 6 ft 3 in and being—albeit just—in my twenties. Observant hon. Members may have already noted that, like my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham, I am from a minority group. In fact, we are both Londoners born and bred.
  In all seriousness, I pay tribute to the Solicitor-General, my right hon. Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman). She has worked tirelessly to make the House look more like the people whom we represent and hope to represent. I very much welcome the part of the Queen's Speech that will enable more women to be elected to the House, and I hope that people from ethnic minority backgrounds also will be encouraged to stand.
  726
  Most of all, I should like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the people of Gloucester who, in the general election campaign, sometimes had to read some quite painful comments about me. After my selection, but before it realised what a splendid fellow I am, my new-found friend, The Citizen, said:
  "Labour can kiss goodbye to this seat. They might as well hand it over to the Conservatives now. The Labour Party in Gloucester has made the same mistake as the Tories in Cheltenham when they chose a black barrister as candidate and handed the seat to the Liberal Democrats. Mr. Dhanda could withdraw to allow another candidate to be adopted"—
  Hon. Members: Shame.
  Mr. Dhanda: I am not making this up, honestly. The Citizen said:
  "Things were so much easier"—
  this may appeal more to older Labour Members than to me—
  "when candidates were picked by a handful of party elders in a smoke filled room rather than the whole party membership of between 400 and 500 people."
  Most painfully of all, not for me but for the residents of Gloucester, The Citizen said:
  "sad to say, many of the voters of Gloucestershire have yet to reach the advanced state of consciousness to accept a foreigner as their local MP."
  The people of Gloucester proved that they are better than that, and I stand here as the very proud Member of Parliament for Gloucester. The people of Gloucester are its greatest asset, and I shall do my utmost to deliver for them a city that is fit for them—a modern, confident and dynamic city that is fit for the 21st century.
  9.2 pm
  Mr. Paul Goodman: It is delightful to follow the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Dhanda), parts of whose speech I found extremely moving and touching. There may be a lesson in what he said for some parts of my party, too. He did not look nervous at all in making his maiden speech, but I confess that it is with a sensation almost of fear mat I rise to address the House for the first time. It is awesome in itself to be a Member of this place, bound up as it is with our country's history and identity, and I am very grateful to the voters of Wycombe for sending me here.
  I am aware that I would do well to follow the example of my predecessor, Sir Ray Whitney. In all our dealings, Ray has displayed all the qualities that have been associated with him both in this place and in Wycombe: shrewdness, courtesy, unselfishness and kindness. He was a devoted public servant and is a perceptive thinker, and I believe that the House will miss him.
  I shall spare the House the glittering words that new Members have occasionally been known to lavish on their constituencies, although I believe of my own constituency of Wycombe what all hon. Members surely believe of theirs—that it is the best constituency in the country. I am proud to represent it. If a single word could sum up Wycombe for me, that word would be diversity. Wycombe ranges from essentially flourishing areas, such as parts of the countryside around Marlow, to areas that face great challenges, such as parts of High Wycombe itself. Farmers, the socially excluded, London commuters,

  727
  older people, single parents, the rich, ethnic minorities; all human life—or, at least, much of it—is to be found in Wycombe. It is, in general, a prosperous constituency, but it has some of the problems posed by prosperity, such as traffic and pressure on green space, as well as those posed by poverty, such as social exclusion, especially among our large ethnic minority communities. In short, it can be seen as a kind of cross-section of modern Britain.
  This diversity and the changes that drive it would not be incomprehensible to a predecessor of mine, were he alive today. As a young man, Benjamin Disraeli fought High Wycombe three times and lost, as a radical. In middle age, he was elected in an unopposed contest— evidently, he must have had an easier election campaign than I did—for Buckinghamshire, which includes my constituency. He settled at Hughenden manor, which is also in my constituency.
  Disraeli said that in a progressive country, change is constant. I cannot help wondering what he would have made of the Government's plans to meet change, as set out in the Queen's Speech. For what the Queen's Speech illustrates to me is not that the Government and Opposition disagree about the recognition of diversity and the need for change, but that their approaches to change are profoundly different. Let me give an example. Today we are discussing law, order, crime and punishment and, naturally, I support the Conservative amendment. But, as someone once said, there is crime and then there are the causes of crime. Crime must certainly be punished, but the causes of crime must be addressed.
  In my constituency, and in others, an increasing number of young people who are growing up have never known the love of two parents, which some of us may sometimes take for granted. Some are young men who have never known their fathers. They are raised and taught almost exclusively by their mums and other women whose work and toil almost never ceases. They have no male role models, except the slightly older men who are active in the local drugs economy. Compared to other children, they are more likely to be excluded from schools and to drift into crime. They can thus stave off, at least for a while, the poverty of income.
  What they find more difficult to stave off is the poverty of hope. After a while, it can become almost impossible for such a young person to imagine breaking out of the cycle of crime, family break-up and more poverty of hope. Where there is poverty of hope, there will sooner or later be poverty of income. Single men remain deprived of opportunity, while single mums bear the work load of two parents. It makes for a spiral of social exclusion—as other hon. Members have pointed out—the consequences of which affect us all, whatever our circumstances.
  On job creation, the Government emphasise inducing parents to work through means-tested credit schemes. We like to emphasise giving parents more choice about work and care through a simple tax and benefits system. Either way, without stable families and the habits that can be picked up from them, there will be no trained and educated work force; no teachers, doctors or nurses with an ethos of self-sacrifice; no voluntary sector of people prepared to give their time to others; and no charities, clubs or civil society—and, yes, there is such a thing as society.
  728
  The challenge of reconciling individual freedom with social obligation is perhaps the greatest challenge of our times. Those Conservatives who like to think of themselves as Disraeli's heirs have a phrase for such a reconciliation: one nation. The Labour party has borrowed that phrase. It is time for Conservative Members to claim ownership of it again.
  I end where I began: it is awesome to be a Member of this House. But how can this House maintain its reputation if its powers are to be superseded by the Executive at home and less accountable institutions abroad? How can we live together as one nation if we are to become no nation at all?
  9.9 pm
  Mr. Win Griffiths: I congratulate the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Goodman) on his maiden speech. His references to Disraeli were entirely apt, considering the tenor of most of his remarks, and I am sure that he will make a positive contribution to the debate that is needed among Conservative Members to create a party that has something valuable to say to the nation.
  I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and his new team at the Home Office on the start that they made in this debate. As my right hon. Friend pointed out, he is building on the excellent foundations laid by my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), who has moved on to entirely different matters. There are many reasons to be concerned about law and order, and we still face serious problems. However, despite the doom and gloom, we must remind ourselves that crime has fallen by about 10 per cent, since 1997.
  The Government have reversed the trend of falling police numbers which started in 1993. Police numbers are beginning to rise again, and there has been a huge increase in the number of people applying for initial police training. We have introduced a crimefighting fund, which will ensure that by 2003 there are more police officers on the beat than ever before. More cash has been made available for the police service. Money for victim support has doubled, and rape victims will no longer have to go through the trauma of being cross-examined by defendants.
  Despite all those good points, the Government are right not to be complacent. We have to remind ourselves that violent crime has increased, and is part of the yob culture to which many of my right hon. and hon. Friends have referred during the debate. The fear of crime remains high. In my constituency, people are afraid to walk through the town after 9 o'clock in the evening simply because of the threat of danger that large crowds, mainly of young men, seen to pose. That fear exists despite the fact that 99 per cent of the time there is no danger at all. City centres just feel unsafe. That is why I welcome the police Bill, which aims to create a more effective police service by, among other things, enabling better co-operation across police force boundaries. A more open and independent police complaints system will have benefits for the public and the police. It will give the public confidence and help to improve co-operation with the police.
  Initially, police reform could lead to more criminals being caught, but in the long term I foresee a reduction because of the deterrent effect of the increased likelihood

  729
  of being caught and the preventive effect of better policing and other anti-crime strategies, such as the "communities that care" programme, which bring together the police, local government, schools, youth clubs and the voluntary sector for the good of the community as a whole. In my local authority area, which covers my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Sir R. Powell), four such projects are getting under way. They have captured the enthusiasm of those involved, and I believe that they will make a significant contribution to reducing crime and creating more cohesive communities that are truly at peace with themselves.
  Equally important for the success of the police Bill and anti-crime strategies such as "communities that care" is the modernisation of our criminal justice system, both to speed up the judicial process without sacrificing fairness and to ensure appropriate sentencing. The punishment should fit the crime, but punishment on its own is not enough. It is true that, when a criminal is in prison, the public are protected, but the role of the criminal justice system goes beyond locking up criminals in prison, and the role of the Prison Service goes beyond keeping criminals in custody. Indeed, part of the Prison Service's stated purpose is to look after prisoners
  "with humanity and help them to lead law-abiding and useful lives in custody and after release."
  I believe that a crucial role for the criminal justice system—of which prisoners are a necessary part—is to protect the public. That can be done, as the retiring chief inspector of prisons Sir David Ramsbotham recently put it, "by preventing reoffending". I hope that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will read, inwardly digest, and act on many of the proposals in the lecture that Sir David gave to the Prison Reform Trust eight days ago.
  I believe that rehabilitation, the prevention of reoffending and the reduction of reconvictions must be central to the Government's anti-crime strategy. All the good work that will follow from the passing of the measures in the Queen's Speech sponsored by the Home Office will be stunted and disfigured if reconviction rates within two years of release remain at more than 50 per cent, for adults, and at nearly 90 per cent. for those under 18. Those figures must be dramatically reduced.
  Prisons will not be working properly until reconviction rates are reduced substantially. The record of Her Majesty's prison at Grendon shows that the rates can be brought down. Rehabilitative work at other prisons, such as at Pare in my constituency, gives grounds for hope. Pare had a very rocky opening 18 months ago, but it is now beginning to work for its inmates and the public. However, the chief inspector of prisons recognises that, despite improvements at Pare and ether prisons, there needs to be a thorough re-examination of rehabilitation strategies. Moreover, those attested success stories that are to be found across the prison service must be boldly implemented according to a well financed, properly monitored and coherent strategy.
  It is interesting to note that, of the 30 announced, and 23 unannounced, inspection reports through which I have skimmed, 37 seemed to me to cover a range of verdicts that ranged from "very good" to "on balance encouraging" and "positive". The remaining 16 seemed to have serious problems, but in the main even they, on reinspection, showed encouraging signs of improvement.
  Home Office projections suggest that the prison population could be higher than 83,000 by the end of the decade, so there is plainly a need to look at alternative
  730
  strategies. I believe that we need a stronger, more closely supervised system of community sentences, and that it might be worth developing youth justice initiatives such as reparation and referral orders.
  The average cost of a prison place is about £26,000 a year, whereas a community sentences costs, on average, about £2,600 to supervise. There is therefore scope for putting more resources into community sentences, given the savings that could be made on prison places.
  I believe that a new concentration on rehabilitation throughout the criminal justice system—and especially in prisons—is an essential component in the Government's determination to cut crime and create peaceful communities where people are comfortable and at ease with themselves. Without that new concentration, all the best efforts to make really significant inroads into the crime culture will fail, and the disaffection of crime-creating, excluded communities, made up of what might be called multi-problem people who are persistent offenders, will remain a blight on our society.
  I am confident that the Government have the will to tackle those fundamental problems, and I look forward to progress being made over the lifetime of this Parliament. I trust that the good work that has been begun will focus on rehabilitation and better community sentencing, because I believe that that is an essential part of the process.
  9.19 pm
  Mrs. Angela Browning: Today's debate has been a full one. Right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House have made constructive contributions to a debate that has focused on law and order and the constitution.
  As this is the conclusion of the full debate on the Queen's Speech, I will not do what I normally do in a winding-up speech and touch on everything that has been said, but I would like to pay tribute to all right hon. and hon. Members who have made their maiden speeches tonight. We have all been very impressed by what we have heard. Those giving them have spoken with great knowledge and warmth about their constituency and their predecessor. I thank my hon. Friends the Members for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham), for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field), and for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Derek Conway), and the hon. Members for Southport (Dr. Pugh), for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Harris), for Belfast, North (Mr. Dodds), for Caerphilly (Mr. David), for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso), for Gloucester (Mr. Dhanda) and for Wycombe (Mr. Goodman).
  I should also like to mention the hon. Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth), who was not making his maiden speech. Any Member unfortunate enough to have to deal with a case of violent crime in his or her constituency—as happens now and then—knows only too well what a harrowing experience it is. Obviously, it changes the lives of the individuals concerned, but the whole community is affected. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East for his contribution to the debate. He has had to deal with the Bulger case for some years now, and we can all sympathise with the responsibility that that has put on him as a constituency Member of Parliament.
  I wish to conclude our debate by referring to constitutional matters. Part of the amendment before the House in the name of the official Opposition deals with

  731
  constitutional matters. My right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) spoke on law and order with her usual conviction and knowledge. However, I wish to focus my remarks on the constitutional part of the Gracious Speech, a matter that has been picked up by many right hon. and hon. Members.
  In another place on 21 June, the Lord Chancellor opened the debate on the Gracious Speech and spoke specifically on constitutional matters. It is appropriate, perhaps, that we form two bookends—the Lord Chancellor started the debate on the Gracious Speech with this subject, and I am pleased to conclude it in the same way.
  The Lord Chancellor justified the constitutional reforms of the Government in the previous Parliament. He stated:
  "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.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 21 June 2001; Vol. 626, c. 46.]
  I call the Labour party to account on that statement. The people of this country have given the Government a second chance to prove that they can deliver on matters such as public services, which have been the subject of a great deal of debate during the past few days, and the Government can certainly say that they have delivered with regard to the changes made to our national constitution in the previous Parliament.
  The changes were contained in some of the earliest Bills produced in the previous Parliament. They were put through without thought or consideration, and they have changed the constitution of this country irrevocably. That is why the further changes that are proposed in this Parliament should be of great concern to all right hon. and hon. Members.
  Members of Parliament should take it as a personal duty to ensure that constitutional changes, particularly those that affect the procedures and workings of this Chamber and another place, do not undermine the rights—particularly in this Chamber—of democratically elected Members to challenge the Executive; and to ensure that, nationally, our democratic process allows the voters to continue to influence our democracy through the ballot box. Anything that undermines that process should affect all Members, regardless of which party they were elected for at a general election.
  Much concern has been expressed about the turnout at the election—59.4 per cent, which is the lowest since 1918. Many Members on both sides of the House have said that the House must consider carefully why the general public are so disinterested—cynical, perhaps— about our proceedings and about the very heart of democracy. It is incumbent upon all of us to rectify that.
  I have heard Labour Members argue that the low turnout was due to the fact that people are so satisfied with the way the Government performed in the past four years that they had nothing to complain about and got on with watering the plants instead of going to the polling station. I question that argument. Indeed, I am sure that the Prime Minister himself would do so, as the tone of much of the debate in the few days since the Gracious Speech has been about the second chance and the need to deliver on promises that were made in the last Parliament.
  The failure of any Government to deliver and to fulfil expectations raised has an impact on the way in which people perceive the proceedings of this place and on
  732
  whether they think that they are engaged in the democratic process. However, it goes beyond that, and there is no single reason why so few people came out to vote. People have become cynical about politics in general and about this national Parliament in particular.
  There is a sense of urgency now. All parliamentarians must—in the way we conduct our business and conduct ourselves as individuals and collectively as political parties—put right some of the damage that has been done. If we do not do so, the people of this country will no longer feel that our democratic system serves its purpose—which is that we, as democratically elected representatives, can be dismissed or re-elected every four or five years. That process is painful for some of us, but it puts the power in the hands of the electorate. Any democratic system that is worthy of the name has to be strong and ensure that the power always remains ultimately in the hands of the electorate, who elect us or choose for whatever reason not to do so.
  We heard some anecdotes, in particular in the maiden speeches, about things that had been said during the campaign. I was particularly moved by the contribution from the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Dhanda), who had had comments made to him that I am sure we all found distressing. Let us hope that people become more enlightened and educated so that they do not say such ignorant things in future.
  All parliamentarians are used to the public saying and doing things that can be wounding. I am pleased to say that my general election campaign was gloriously victorious—I almost trebled my majority with a very respectable turnout in Tiverton and Honiton—but when one of my constituents was asked whether he would vote Conservative he said, "No, I'm voting tactically to get that Edwina Currie out." That was very wounding.
  The Lord Chancellor opened the Queen's Speech debate for the Government in another place and spelled out some of the issues that would be constitutionally important in this Parliament. In a moment I will deal with those constitutional matters that are printed on the face of the Gracious Speech, but it is of great concern that the Lord Chancellor should raise as a priority constitutional matters that are not even in the speech. I raise this tonight in the hope that the Leader of the House may be able to enlighten the House with the full agenda for constitutional change that the Government obviously have in mind, but have not necessarily disclosed in the Gracious Speech.
  There was nothing in the Gracious Speech to say what the Government intended to do about sorting out the mess that was left behind following devolution in Scotland. That was mentioned in another place, when the Lord Chancellor said:
  "Devolution does not signal antagonistic confrontation"—[Official Report, House of Lords, 21 June 2001; Vol. 626, c. 46.]
  Obviously, however, there will be antagonistic confrontation unless fairness is introduced as between Scotland and England, and to the way in which Scotland is represented in this place, and unless we take action on the way in which MPs representing Scotland are allowed to continue to vote on matters that are quite clearly, as far as primary legislation is concerned, matters for England and Wales alone.
  I hope that the Leader of the House will tell us that, under his stewardship, we can expect that injustice to be

  733
  put right in this Parliament. I know that I am addressing the right person in the Cabinet, because I remind him of his words when he said that
  "it would be wrong for those of us from Scotland to…interfere in English domestic affairs after that watershed"—
  he was referring to devolution—
  "has been reached."—[Official Report, 1 February 1977; Vol. 925, c. 457.]
  So on a point of principle the Leader of the House is clearly signed up to the fact that there has to be fairness in the way in which devolution is arranged. It is a done deal now. The official Opposition accept that there is a Scottish Parliament. There is no suggestion that we would seek to revoke that. However, there must be fairness for the rest of the country as well, because this is unfinished business. I hope that the fact that the Lord Chancellor mentioned it in another place means that the Leader of the House will tell us tonight exactly how the Government will put that right.
  Another very important constitutional issue that was not mentioned in the Queen's Speech or in anything that we have heard in the Chamber during the debate on the Loyal Address, concerns English regional assemblies. The Prime Minister said earlier today, in response to an oral question, that the people would decide about regional government for England, so I wonder why there is no proposal on the table, and certainly no mention of it in the speech, because many issues surrounding the regional government proposals for England remain.
  What is the future of the democratically elected county council structure in England? The Lord Chancellor described the English regions as distinct parts. They are not distinct parts; they are parts of England, drawn on a map with an arbitrary line, created not because those regions have anything in terms of commonality, but simply because they suit a political agenda. The agenda is to chop England up into bite-sized chunks. How much easier it would be for a Prime Minister, if we had such a Prime Minister, to see off each little chunk of England one at a time than to see off the collective voice of England represented in the Chamber, ready to hold the Government to account, which is what this Parliament is for.
  I hope that, when the Leader of the House gets to his feet in a moment, he will be able to share with us his response to those errors in, and omissions from, the Gracious Speech, which received a great deal of attention and comment in another place.
  Will the Leader of the House respond to another issue that is mentioned in our amendment? Will he explain why, if the Government believe that it is the people who should have the final say, one of the biggest constitutional issues that the House will deal with this Session, and which we suspect will be dealt with very soon—the ratification of the treaty of Nice—is not to be subject to a referendum of the people? If the people are to be trusted, why cannot this big constitutional change be put to a referendum of the people, as big constitutional matters should be?
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Bob Ainsworth): Game, set and match.
  Mrs. Browning: The hon. Gentleman says that from a sedentary position—and it is certainly true in the Republic
  734
  of Ireland, where the people have spoken. Despite the fact that they have spoken, it is clear that their voice will be suppressed, not by any democratic body that they have elected, but by an unelected, undemocratic body in Brussels. I should like the Leader of the House to tell us why we should not have a referendum on the Nice treaty.
  Mr. Paul Tyler: Will the hon. Lady remind the House of how she voted when the Liberal Democrats suggested that the Maastricht treaty should be put to a referendum?
  Mrs. Browning: I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that, when I fought the 1992 election—[Interruption.] Liberal Members should not be so rude. When I fought the 1992 election, the Maastricht treaty had been signed, with some very important opt-outs which the hon. Gentleman would willingly embrace, such as those on the social chapter and the single currency. I accepted in good faith that that was the best deal at the time. Since being elected to the House, I have become very suspicious of all deals cobbled together in Brussels. On a point of principle, I would be in favour of referendums on all major constitutional issues. I had thought that that was Liberal Democrat policy, but perhaps they have also changed their minds.
  Simon Hughes indicated assent.
  Mr. Tyler indicated assent.
  Mrs. Browning: Oh, they agree with me. We know that they are trying to be the official Opposition, but it is no good their intervening on matters about which they agree.
  Mr. Gerald Kaufman: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Mrs. Browning: I shall give way very briefly, but I was not impressed with the right hon. Gentleman's contribution on the first day of debate on the Gracious Speech. If I give way to him, I hope that his intervention will not be acerbic, rude or pointless.
  Mr. Kaufman: My gosh, that has slain me.
  Mrs. Browning rose—
  Mr. Kaufman: What was the hon. Lady's view when Margaret Thatcher guillotined the Single European Act through the House, without even allowing a right to debate it properly here, let alone a referendum?
  Mrs. Browning: I was not a Member then; I am much younger than the right hon. Gentleman thinks.
  I should like to refer to some of the other changes that we face in this Chamber and elsewhere. The Gracious Speech states that the Government intend to introduce legislation to implement the second phase of what they describe as House of Lords reform, following consultation. I have to tell the Leader of the House, who is new to his post and so may not be fully up to speed with such matters—[Interruption.] That is not a personal slight; he has only just been promoted, so he has inherited the proposals.

  735
  In the previous Parliament, the leader of the Conservative party in the House of Lords and I met the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor and the then leader of the Labour party in the Lords to seek to fulfil their pledge to set up a cross-party committee of both Houses to consider the second phase of House of Lords reform. We in the Conservative party made it clear in the House that we were willing to engage in that process, but I am afraid that the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor and the then Leader of the House of Lords not only declined to fulfil their own promises, but declined take us up on our offer, because they would not allow the committee to discuss the composition of the House of Lords in phase two.
  The Government were very happy for the committee to debate things such as guillotining and similar arbitrary changes to the procedures in the Lords, such as those that were imposed on this House in the last Parliament, but despite their pledge they were unwilling to let that committee discuss the composition of the House of Lords in phase two. I must tell the Leader that if the words "following consultation" in the Queen's Speech are to mean anything, the consultation must be wide-reaching, genuine, and embracing of both Houses and all parties.
  Of course, the fear is that the Government will impose on us their wish for the composition of the Lords. We have heard the proposal to get rid of the hereditaries. We have had a vast number of people added to the Lords— 245 have been appointed in the past four years. The Government have not said anything about dealing with that aspect of the composition of the Lords.
  I shall have something to say tomorrow in a much longer debate about the procedures of the House and the way in which they have been hijacked by the Executive. I shall leave those comments until tomorrow, in the hope that the Leader of the House can answer some of the questions that I have put to him tonight.
  9.40 pm
  The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Robin Cook): I begin by putting it on record that 39 speeches have been made by new Members and a few old Members who have been enjoying a sabbatical from the House. Some angst has been expressed today about the standing of Parliament, but I hope that I shall carry the whole House with me if I make the positive conclusion that the high quality of the maiden speeches made in the debates on the Queen's Speech and the calibre of new hon. Members are good grounds for optimism about the future of the House. I warmly welcome the hon. Members for Southport (Dr. Pugh), for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field), for Belfast, North (Mr. Dodds) and for Wycombe (Mr. Goodman) and my hon. Friends the Members for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Harris), for Caerphilly (Mr. David) and for Gloucester (Mr. Dhanda) I congratulate them on their well-expressed tributes to the constituents who sent them here and to their predecessors. As it is evident that it gave him so much pleasure, I hope that the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso) will accept my congratulations on being disenobled and joining us as a born-again commoner.
  The hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) has returned from a sabbatical. I think that we have a sufficient majority for me to be
  736
  Magnanimous enough to congratulate him on his return. I am not entirely convinced that he correctly paraphrased the Prime Minister's comments on "Question Time", and it is important that we get it straight, as I am aware that one of the hon. Gentleman's distant ancestors carried out the only assassination of a Prime Minister, when he shot Spencer Perceval. I would not want there to be a repetition through any misunderstanding.
  I took the precaution of looking up the speech made by the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) in reply to this debate last year. I was entertained to see that she finished by saying that the best thing about that year's Queen's Speech debate was that it brought the Tory party six days closer to the general election. It is a sentiment which in retrospect she may wish she had phrased differently.
  Today, the right hon. Lady made a sustained plea for modernisation of the constitution. In a spirit of friendship and willingness to enter into common endeavour with her, I should say that her pleas would have carried more authority if just once she had acknowledged the state of the constitution that the Conservatives left behind four years ago. It was the only constitution in the democratic world that allowed the hereditary principle to determine who controlled one of two Chambers of Parliament. It was one of the most centralised constitutions in Europe and we had one of the most secretive of democratic states. The public had no right to know information held by the Government elected by the public.
  As a Member of Parliament who served in the House for every one of the 18 years that the Conservative party was in power, I have difficulty sharing the rosy glow with which the right hon. Lady appears to recall that period as the golden age of parliamentary democracy. The Conservatives may have forgotten it, but the nation has not forgotten the poll tax, which symbolised all that was rotten in the constitution at the time. The measure was forced through the House by Government Whips, despite opposition from every other party and from most of their own Members. It was pushed through the House of Lords on the back of the hereditary vote. One Member of the other place was flown back for the day from his residence in Monte Carlo, where he did not have to pay the poll tax in any case.
  The poll tax was first imposed on the people of Scotland, who had not voted for a Tory Government at any price. I do not recall it entering the heads of Conservative Members that it would be unfair for Tory Members of Parliament to impose the poll tax on Scottish people who had not voted for it. Any constitution that permitted such a monumental mistake as the poll tax was one demanding a thorough overhaul.
  I agree with the non. Member for Tiverton and Honiton that the Government have delivered on radical reform of the constitution. We are proud of that. The people of Scotland and Wales have their own Parliament and Assembly to decide for themselves how to run their public services. I remind her that the Conservative party is only represented in those bodies because we introduced a voting system that is fair to parties which otherwise would be endangered species.
  We introduced the Freedom of Information Act 2000, which gives the public the right to the information in millions of documents that were previously kept from them. In addition, we have broken with the hereditary

  737
  principle in the House of Lords. Of course more needs to be done—not that the Conservatives ever attempted to do it while they were in office.
  The Opposition's amendment demands a referendum on the Nice treaty. That is from a party that took Britain into the European Community without a referendum; accepted sweeping increases in majority voting as the price of the single market without a referendum; and signed up to the Maastricht treaty without a referendum. In all the Conservatives' long years in office, they never once gave the British people a referendum on anything. They did, however, claim that they were going to make the election a referendum on Europe—and they lost catastrophically. If I understand them right, the Conservatives are going to claim that, although they might have lost that referendum in the United Kingdom, they won in Ireland.
  If the Conservatives want to be taken seriously when they promise to learn from the lessons of defeat, they cannot ring-fence their party prejudices about Europe from the learning process. A good starting point for their rethink could be the Nice treaty. It gives Britain a larger vote than it ever had in the Conservative years and, for the first time, sets out the votes of the candidate countries that are queueing up to become members of the EU even as Conservative Members develop second thoughts. If they cannot support even that modest measure, they are refusing to learn one of the key lessons of the election— that the British public have enough common sense to reject a party that prides itself on offering isolation, rather than influence, in Europe.
  Sir Peter Tapsell: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Cook: I cannot resist, although this is probably the only time that I can give way.
  Sir Peter Tapsell: How can the right hon. Gentleman describe as a modest measure a treaty in which we give up 34 areas of our national veto?
  Mr. Cook: For a start, we have already opted out of about 10 of those because we are not part of Schengen. Others relate to matters of such triviality as the pension arrangements for court officials. Some, however, are important, and we fought for those at Nice, including the measure to get rid of the French veto on protectionism and trade. If the hon. Gentleman wants to restore that veto to France, it will be welcomed in Paris and rejected throughout the rest of Europe, including at Westminster.
  I cannot help the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton with a referendum on the Nice treaty, but I hope that I can work with her and all hon. Members on the reform of Parliament. There is a big job to be done to complete the reform of the House of Lords to make it a more representative second Chamber. I am grateful for the hon. Lady's helpful advice on the background to that.
  The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) asked for consultation before we proceed. The Queen's Speech promised that there would be further consultation. It must, of course, include both Houses, because any change to the status of the House of Lords plainly has big implications for the House of Commons. However, I assure the hon. Member
  738
  for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross, who speaks with personal authority on the issue, that we have no intention of allowing consultation to obstruct reform if it does not produce consensus.
  I hope that we will be able to build consensus on modernisation of the Commons. As Leader of the House, I shall seek support in all quarters for two important objectives of modernisation. The first is to enable the House to hold the Government to account and to scrutinise their Executive decisions and legislation. As my hon. Friend the Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood) reminded us, good scrutiny makes for good government.
  Hon. Members of all parties have urged on me that the highest priority is to get the Select Committees restarted. My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) asked during this debate for them to be set up before the House rises for the summer recess. His request carries extra force as he has voluntarily given up a career on the ministerial Bench to return to one of the Select Committees.
  Mr. Cash: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Cook: I am afraid that I must make progress.
  Mr. Cash rose—
  Mr. Cook: I am pleased to say to my hon. Friend, and to the hon. Gentleman if he will allow me to continue, that it is my intention to enable Select Committees to be set up in the week beginning 16 July. That is only four weeks after the Queen's Speech and reflects a faster timetable for setting up Select Committees than in any previous Parliament. I also propose to increase the discretion of Select Committees by enabling them to decide for themselves whether they should appoint sub-Committees rather than having that decision imposed on them.
  The second objective of modernisation must be to ensure that the hours and working methods of this House belong to the same century in which most of our constituents live and work. On Monday, the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) made an intervention in a new, soft focus, socially inclusive mode. I would not wish to discourage him from the challenging process of reinventing himself as a social Liberal, but I am not sure that I did not prefer him as his former robust and brutal self.
  On Monday, the hon. Gentleman made a memorable appeal for more women Tory Members of Parliament. If he really wants more women to come forward as MPs, there are two steps that he and his colleagues can take. [Hon. Members: "Resign."] Well, there is a third step, but I was not going to be that brutal and robust.
  First, the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues could support the Bill in the Queen's Speech to permit positive measures for the selection of women as candidates. Secondly, they must support procedures in this House that make it easier for a woman to be both a mother and a Member of Parliament at the same time. If length of sitting hours were a test of scrutiny, this House would pass with an alpha plus, because we sit for longer than any other democratic Parliament. Wasting the time of the House should not be confused with effective scrutiny.
  Mrs. Browning: If women in this place are to be taken as professional and serious in the job of Member of

  739
  Parliament, why are the Government not proposing that, for example, women serving as officers in the armed forces, women barristers and others also work nine to five so that they can get home to cook the fish fingers? [Interruption.]
  Mr. Cook: As one of my women colleagues shouted during the hon. Lady's intervention, no Member and no woman Member is suggesting that we should sit from nine to five. However, it does not seem entirely unreasonable that we should allow colleagues to go home at 10 o'clock at night. Members of any other profession would regard that as a very minimum working condition.
  Elections put a great obligation on those of us who are victors. We must always remember that we secured the trust of the people because they expected us to deliver what we promised: economic opportunity for working families and their children, quality public services on which they can rely, security in their homes and safety on their streets.
  We want to liberate the talents and energy of the British people. We want to widen the opportunities for those who get on by working hard. That is why the Queen's Speech includes an enterprise Bill, which will promote enterprise by sharpening competition and by helping small businesses to come back from bankruptcy. That is why the Queen's Speech widens access to high-quality education.
  When the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) opened the debate, she spoke with feeling about the problems of real life on deprived estates. One of the factors that perpetuate such deprivation is the low educational expectation of families in such neighbourhoods We must not accept that children in areas of social deprivation should put up with poorer standards at their schools and poorer opportunities to gain qualifications and skills. That is why the Queen's Speech commits us to an education Bill that will widen the diversity of schools and push up standards for all our children, whatever their family background and wherever their home.
  We are committed to opportunity for all who can take it, but we intend to parallel that with security for all who need it. That is why the Queen's Speech included a pension credit Bill—a Bill that will reward those pensioners who have saved for their old age, rather than penalizing them for having done so. During the debate on the Queen's Speech, I have heard that Bill denounced by the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman as extending the indignity of means testing. That is a rich piece of effrontery from the party which during more than 18 years in power made the means tests progressively more mean, until they had stripped away housing benefit, council tax benefit and any other benefit from any pensioner with a little bit more than income support. How dare the Conservatives now accuse us of imposing the indignity of the means test on pensioners, when we are giving back to pensioners some of the help of which they robbed them?
  In her opening speech, the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald made a memorable plea to her party to serve not only the god of public spending cuts. That is the sort of line that makes many Labour Members hope that, even at this late stage in the proceedings, her party will be big enough to find a place for her in its
  740
  leadership election. If we are to have a world-class health service, we need investment, not spending cuts. That is why the NHS is now benefiting from the biggest hospital building programme it has ever known.
  However, investment alone is not enough. We must make sure that the investment is put to best use. That is why the Queen's Speech includes an NHS reform Bill—a Bill that will shift the center of gravity in the NHS from Whitehall to those in the front line who are closer to patients' needs and patients' wishes
  Mr. Cash: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Speaker: I hope that it really is a point of order.
  Mr. Cash: It is, Mr. Speaker. Twice during the course of this debate the Deputy Speakers have drawn attention to the fact that the subject of public services is not regarded as being within the purview of the debate. I should be grateful if you ruled on that point
  Mr. Speaker: I knew that the hon. Gentleman did not really have a point of order. The Leader of the House is entitled to go over all the debates that have taken place in the past few days. His rights are different from those of Back Benchers in these circumstances
  Mr. Leigh: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Speaker: I have already explained the position.
  Mr. Leigh: During an earlier speech, Mr. Speaker, your deputy made it absolutely clear that we had to stick to the terms of the amendment and that we could not speak on health and education. Why is there one rule for the Leader of the House and another for Back Benchers?
  Mr. Speaker: Both winding-up speakers are entitled to go wider than any Back Bencher. That is a long-standing tradition of the House
  Mr. Cook: I am grateful to the hon. Gentlemen, Mr. Speaker, because I could not have demonstrated better than they have how little the Opposition want to hear about what we are going to do for the health service.
  When launching his leadership bid, the shadow Chancellor admitted that in response to two disastrous defeats, his party
  "needs to develop a much better understanding of the problems of education and health".
  We are happy to co-operate with the Conservatives to give them all the time they need in opposition to develop that better understanding. In the meantime, we will get on with implementing the policies that won Labour victory.
  We will carry though the commitments of the Queen's Speech a quality health service, world-class standards and skills in our schools, and a fair society that offers opportunity to youth and dignity to age. That is what this Government intend to deliver. That is what Britain voted for last month. That is what Labour Members will vote for in the Lobby tonight.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 150, Noes 403

  Division No. 2]

  [9.59 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Key, Robert

  Amess, David

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Knight, Rt Hon Greg (E Yorkshire)

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Bacon, Richard

  Lansley, Andrew

  Baldry, Tony

  Leigh, Edward

  Barker, Greg

  Letwin, Oliver

  Baron, John

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Liddell—Grainger, Ian

  Bercow, John

  Lidington, David

  Blunt, Crispin

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Boswell, Tim

  Loughton, Tim

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Luff, Peter

  Brady, Graham

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Brazier, Julian

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Burns, Simon

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Burt, Alistair

  Malins, Humfrey

  Cameron, David

  Maples, John

  Cash, William

  Mates, Michael

  Chope, Christopher

  Maude, Rt Hon Francis

  Clappison, James

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth

  May, Mrs Theresa

  (Rushcliffe)

  Mercer, Patrick

  Collins, Tim

  Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

  Conway, Derek

  Moss, Malcolm

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Murrison, Dr Andrew

  Cran, James

  Norman, Archie

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Osborne, George (Tatton)

  Djanogly, Jonathan

  Ottaway, Richard

  Duncan, Alan

  Page, Richard

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Paice, James

  Duncan, Peter

  Paterson, Owen

  Evans, Nigel

  Pickles, Eric

  Fabricant, Michael

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Fallon, Michael

  Prisk, Mark

  Field, Mark (Cities of London)

  Randall, John

  Flight, Howard

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Flook, Adrian

  Robathan, Andrew

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Robertson, Hugh (Faversham)

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Francois, Mark

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Gale, Roger

  Rosindell, Andrew

  Garnier, Edward

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Gibb, Nick

  Selous, Andrew

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Shepherd, Richard

  Goodman, Paul

  Simmonds, Mark

  Gray, James

  Simpson, Keith (Mid—Norfolk)

  Grayling, Chris

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Green, Damian (Ashford)

  Soames, Nicholas

  Greenway, John

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Grieve, Dominic

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Spring, Richard

  Hammond, Philip

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Hawkins, Nick

  Steen, Anthony

  Hayes, John

  Streeter, Gary

  Heald, Oliver

  Swayne, Desmond

  Heathcoat—Amory, Rt Hon David

  Swire, Hugo

  Hendry, Charles

  Syms, Robert

  Hoban, Mark

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Horam, John

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Hunter, Andrew

  Tredinnick, David

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Trend, Michael

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

  Johnson, Boris (Henley)

  Tyrie, Andrew

  742

  Viggers, Peter

  Willetts, David

  Walter, Robert

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Waterson, Nigel

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Watkinson, Angela

  Yeo, Tim

  Whittingdale, John

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Wiggin, Bill

  Mr. Peter Atkinson and

  Wilkinson, John

  Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown.

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  (NE Fife)

  Ainger, Nick

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

  Caplin, Ivor

  Alexander, Douglas

  Carmichael, Alistair

  Allan, Richard

  Casale, Roger

  Allen, Graham

  Caton, Martin

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Cawsey, Ian

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Challen, Colin

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Chaytor, David

  Austin, John

  Chidgey, David

  Bailey, Adrian

  Clapham, Michael

  Baird, Vera

  Clark, Dr Lynda

  Baker, Norman

  (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Banks, Tony

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Barnes, Harry

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Barrett, John

  Clelland, David

  Barron, Kevin

  Clwyd, Ann

  Battle, John

  Coaker, Vernon

  Bayley, Hugh

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Beard, Nigel

  Coleman, Iain

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Colman, Tony

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Connarty, Michael

  Bell, Stuart

  Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

  Benn, Hilary

  Cooper, Yvette

  Bennett, Andrew

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Benton, Joe

  Corston, Jean

  Berry, Roger

  Cotter, Brian

  Best, Harold

  Cousins, Jim

  Betts, Clive

  Cranston, Ross

  Blackman, Liz

  Cruddas, Jon

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Blizzard, Bob

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Blunkett, Rt Hon David

  Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

  Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

  Curtis—Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Borrow, David

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Bradley, Rt Hon Keith (Withington)

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Bradshaw, Ben

  David, Wayne

  Brake, Tom

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Breed, Colin

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Brennan, Kevin

  Dawson, Hilton

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Brooke, Annette

  Dhanda, Parmjit

  Brown, Rt Hon Gordon

  Dobbin, Jim

  (Dunfermline E)

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Brown, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Dodds, Nigel

  (Newcastle E & Wallsend)

  Doughty, Sue

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Dowd, Jim

  Browne, Desmond

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Bryant, Chris

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Burden, Richard

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Burgon, Colin

  Efford, Clive

  Burnett, John

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Burnham, Andy

  Ennis, Jeff

  Burstow, Paul

  Ewing, Annabelle

  Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

  Farrelly, Paul

  Cable, Dr Vincent

  Field, Rt Hon Frank (Birkenhead)

  Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

  Fisher, Mark

  Cairns, David

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

  Calton, Patsy

  Flint, Caroline

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  743

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  Kemp, Fraser

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles

  Francis, Dr Hywel

  (Ross Skye & Inverness W)

  Galloway, George

  Khabra, Piara S

  Gapes, Mike

  Kidney, David

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Gidley, Sandra

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Gilroy, Linda

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Godsiff, Roger

  Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

  Goggins, Paul

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Lamb, Norman

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Lammy, David

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Grogan, John

  Laws, David

  Hain, Peter

  Laxton, Bob

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Lazarowicz, Mark

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Lepper, David

  Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

  Leslie, Christopher

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Levitt, Tom

  Hanson, David

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Harris, Dr Evan (Oxford W)

  Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  Linton, Martin

  Harvey, Nick

  Lloyd, Tony

  Havard, Dai

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Healey, John

  Love, Andrew

  Heath, David

  Lucas, Ian

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Luke, Iain

  Hendrick, Mark

  Lyons, John

  Heppell, John

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Hesford, Stephen

  McCabe, Stephen

  Hewitt, Rt Hon Ms Patricia

  McCartney, Rt Hon Ian

  Heyes, David

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Hill, Keith

  MacDonald, Calum

  Hinchliffe, David

  McDonnell, John

  Hodge, Margaret

  McFall, John

  Hoey, Kate

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Holmes, Paul

  McIsaac, Shona

  Hood, Jimmy

  McKechin, Ann

  Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  McKenna, Rosemary

  Hope, Phil

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

  McWalter, Tony

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  McWilliam, John

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Mahmood, Khalid

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Hughes, Beverley (Stretford)

  Mallaber, Judy

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Mann, John

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Marris, Rob

  Hurst, Alan

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Hutton, John

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Illsley, Eric

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

  Marshall—Andrews, Robert

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Martlew, Eric

  Jamieson, David

  Merron, Gillian

  Jenkins, Brian

  Miliband, David

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Miller, Andrew

  Johnson, Miss Melanie

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Moffatt, Laura

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Moore, Michael

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Moran, Margaret

  Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

  Morgan, Julie

  Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Morley, Elliot

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Morris, Rt Hon Estelle

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Mountford, Kali

  Jowell, Rt Hon Tessa

  Mudie, George

  Joyce, Eric

  Mullin, Chris

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Munn, Ms Meg

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Keetch, Paul

  Norris, Dan

  744

  Oaten, Mark

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Steinberg, Gerry

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Stevenson, George

  Olner, Bill

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Öpik, Lembit

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Organ, Diana

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Owen, Albert

  Straw, Rt Hon Jack

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Stringer, Graham

  Pearson, Ian

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Perham, Linda

  Stunell, Andrew

  Picking, Anne

  Tami, Mark

  Pickthall, Colin

  Taylor, Rt Hon Ann (Dewsbury)

  Pike, Peter

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Plaskitt, James

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Pond, Chris

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Pope, Greg

  Taylor, Dr Richard (Wyre F)

  Pound, Stephen

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Thurso, John

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Tipping, Paddy

  Pugh, Dr John

  Todd, Mark

  Purchase, Ken

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Purnell, James

  Touhig, Don

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Trickett, Jon

  Rammell, Bill

  Truswell, Paul

  Rapson, Syd

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Raynsford, Rt Hon Nick

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Rendel, David

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Robertson, Angus (Moray)

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Robertson, John

  Tyler, Paul

  (Glasgow Anniesland)

  Tynan, Bill

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Robinson, Iris (Strangford)

  Wareing, Robert N

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Watson, Tom

  Rooney, Terry

  Watts, David

  Ross, Ernie

  Webb, Steve

  Ruane, Chris

  Weir, Michael

  Ruddock, Joan

  White, Brian

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Ryan, Joan

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  Salmond, Alex

  (Swansea W)

  Salter, Martin

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Sanders, Adrian

  Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Williams, Roger (Brecon)

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Willis, Phil

  Sawford, Phil

  Wilson, Brian

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Winnick, David

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Sheridan, Jim

  Wishart, Pete

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  Wood, Mike

  Simon, Siôn

  Woodward, Shaun

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Woolas, Phil

  Skinner, Dennis

  Worthington, Tony

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Wright, David (Telford)

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Wyatt, Derek

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Younger—Ross, Richard

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

  Soley, Clive

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Southworth, Helen

  Mr. Tony McNulty and

  Squire, Rachel

  Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Amendment proposed, at the end of the Question, to add:
  "But humbly regret that the Gracious Speech fails to include any measures to address the problems faced by rural communities in the wake of the foot and mouth crisis or remove the bureaucracy stifling British agriculture and rural enterprise; are dismayed by the

  745
  Government's failure to place environmental concerns at the heart of its legislative programme, to address the crisis in our public transport system and to reform the basis for local government funding; believe that the Government's proposals for education will not adequately address the continuing crisis in teacher recruitment and retention; further believe that tuition fees remain the greatest bar to a university education for many; further believe that while reform of the criminal justice system is necessary, there is no justification for undermining fundamental civil liberties of our citizens, in particular their right to a fair trial; urge the establishment of a standing Royal Commission to report on policies dealing with all drugs; regret the continued failure of the Government to provide for referendums on a fair voting system for the House of Commons and the European Single Currency and to bring forward wide-ranging proposals for modernisation of both Houses of Parliament; regret the lack of provision for personal care for elderly and disabled people, and for preventive healthcare; and call on the Government to take bold steps to tackle the steep inequalities of opportunity and access to essential services which afflict the most disadvantaged members in society."—[Simon Hughes.]
  Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 33 (Calling of amendments at end of debate), That the amendment be made:—
  The house divided: Ayes 57, Noes 344.

  Division No. 3]

  [10.14 pm

  AYES

  Allan, Richard

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Baker, Norman

  Lamb, Norman

  Barrett, John

  Laws, David

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Brake, Tom

  Moore, Michael

  Breed, Colin

  Oaten, Mark

  Brooke, Annette

  Öpik, Lembit

  Burnett, John

  Pugh, Dr John

  Burstow, Paul

  Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

  Cable, Dr Vincent

  Rendel, David

  Calton, Patsy

  Robertson, Angus (Moray)

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  (NE Fife)

  Salmond, Alex

  Carmichael, Alistair

  Sanders, Adrian

  Chidgey, David

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Cotter, Brian

  Taylor, Dr Richard (Wyre F)

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Doughty, Sue

  Thurso, John

  Ewing, Annabelle

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Tyler, Paul

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Webb, Steve

  Gidley, Sandra

  Weir, Michael

  Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

  Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

  Harris, Dr Evan (Oxford W)

  Williams, Roger (Brecon)

  Harvey, Nick

  Willis, Phil

  Heath, David

  Wishart, Pete

  Holmes, Paul

  Younger—Ross, Richard

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Keetch, Paul

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles

  Sir Robert Smith and

  (Ross Skye & Inverness W)

  Mr. Andrew Stunell.

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Baird, Vera

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Banks, Tony

  Ainger, Nick

  Barnes, Harry

  Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

  Baron, John

  Alexander, Douglas

  Battle, John

  Allen, Graham

  Bayley Hugh

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Beard, Nigel

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Bell, Stuart

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Benn, Hilary

  Austin, John

  Bennett, Andrew

  Bailey, Adrian

  Benton, Joe

  746

  Berry, Roger

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Best, Harold

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Betts, Clive

  Efford, Clive

  Blackman, Liz

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Ennis, Jeff

  Blizzard, Bob

  Farrelly, Paul

  Blunkett, Rt Hon David

  Field, Rt Hon Frank (Birkenhead)

  Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

  Fisher, Mark

  Borrow, David

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

  Bradley, Rt Hon Keith (Withington)

  Flint, Caroline

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  Brennan, Kevin

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Galloway, George

  Brown, Rt Hon Gordon

  Gapes, Mike

  (Dunfermline E)

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Brown, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Gilroy, Linda

  (Newcastle E & Wallsend)

  Goggins, Paul

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Browne, Desmond

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Bryant, Chris

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Grogan, John

  Burden, Richard

  Hain, Peter

  Burgon, Colin

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Burnham, Andy

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

  Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

  Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Cairns, David

  Hanson, David

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Havard, Dai

  Caplin, Ivor

  Healey, John

  Casale, Roger

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Caton, Martin

  Hendrick, Mark

  Cawsey, Ian

  Heppell, John

  Challen, Colin

  Hesford, Stephen

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Hewitt, Rt Hon Ms Patricia

  Chaytor, David

  Heyes, David

  Clapham, Michael

  Hill, Keith

  Clark, Dr Lynda

  Hinchliffe, David

  (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Hodge, Margaret

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Hoey, Kate

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Hood, Jimmy

  Clelland, David

  Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  Clwyd, Ann

  Hope, Phil

  Coaker, Vernon

  Hopkins, Kevin

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

  Coleman, Iain

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Colman, Tony

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Connarty, Michael

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

  Hughes, Beverley (Stretford)

  Cooper, Yvette

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Corston, Jean

  Hurst, Alan

  Cousins, Jim

  Hutton, John

  Cran, James

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Cranston, Ross

  Illsley, Eric

  Cruddas, Jon

  Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Jamieson, David

  Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

  Jenkins, Brian

  Curtis—Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Johnson, Miss Melanie

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  (Welwyn Hatfield)

  David, Wayne

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

  Dawson, Hilton

  Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Dhanda, Parmjit

  Jowell, Rt Hon Tessa

  Dobbin, Jim

  Joyce, Eric

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Dodds, Nigel

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Dowd, Jim

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Kemp, Fraser

  747

  Khabra, Piara S

  Perham, Linda

  Kidney, David

  Picking, Anne

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Pickthall, Colin

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Pike, Peter

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Plaskitt, James

  Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

  Pond, Chris

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Pope, Greg

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Pound, Stephen

  Lammy, David

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Laxton, Bob

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Lazarowicz, Mark

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Lepper, David

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Leslie, Christopher

  Purchase, Ken

  Levitt, Tom

  Purnell, James

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Rammell, Bill

  Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

  Rapson, Syd

  Linton, Martin

  Raynsford, Rt Hon Nick

  Lloyd, Tony

  Robertson, John

  Love, Andrew

  (Glasgow Anniesland)

  Lucas, Ian

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  Luke, Iain

  Robinson, Iris (Strangford)

  Lyons, John

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Rooney, Terry

  McCabe, Stephen

  Ross, Ernie

  McCartney, Rt Hon Ian

  Ruane, Chris

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Ruddock, Joan

  MacDonald, Calum

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  McDonnell, John

  Ryan, Joan

  McFall, John

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Savidge, Malcolm

  McIsaac, Shona

  Sawford, Phil

  McKechin, Ann

  Sedgemore, Brian

  McKenna, Rosemary

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Sheridan, Jim

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  McWalter, Tony

  Simon, Siôn

  McWilliam, John

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Mahmood, Khalid

  Skinner, Dennis

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Mallaber, Judy

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  Mann, John

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Marris, Rob

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Soley, Clive

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Southworth, Helen

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Squire, Rachel

  Marshall—Andrews, Robert

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Martlew, Eric

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Merron, Gillian

  Stevenson, George

  Miliband, David

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Miller, Andrew

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Moffatt, Laura

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Moran, Margaret

  Straw, Rt Hon Jack

  Morgan, Julie

  Stringer, Graham

  Morley, Elliot

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Morris, Rt Hon Estelle

  Tami, Mark

  Mountford, Kali

  Taylor, Rt Hon Ann (Dewsbury)

  Mudie, George

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Mullin, Chris

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Munn, Ms Meg

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

  Tipping, Paddy

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Todd, Mark

  Norris, Dan

  Touhig, Don

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Trickett, Jon

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Truswell, Paul

  Olner, Bill

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Organ, Diana

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Owen, Albert

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Pearson, Ian

  Tynan, Bill

  748

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Wood, Mike

  Wareing, Robert N

  Woodward, Shaun

  Watson, Tom

  Woolas, Phil

  Watts, David

  Worthington, Tony

  White, Brian

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Wright, David (Telford)

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  Wyatt, Derek

  (Swansea W)

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Wilson, Brian

  Mr. Tony McNulty

  Winnick, David

  and Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe.

  Question accordingly negatived
  Main question put:—
  The House divided: Ayes 334, Noes 207.

  Division No. 4]

  [10.28 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Caplin, Ivor

  Ainger, Nick

  Casale, Roger

  Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

  Caton, Martin

  Alexander, Douglas

  Cawsey, Ian

  Allen, Graham

  Challen, Colin

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Chaytor, David

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Clapham, Michael

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Clark, Dr Lynda

  Austin, John

  (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Bailey, Adrian

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Baird, Vera

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Banks, Tony

  Clelland, David

  Barnes, Harry

  Clwyd, Ann

  Barron, Kevin

  Coaker, Vernon

  Battle, John

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Bayley, Hugh

  Coleman, Iain

  Beard, Nigel

  Colman, Tony

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Connarty, Michael

  Bell, Stuart

  Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

  Benn, Hilary

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Bennett, Andrew

  Corston, Jean

  Benton, Joe

  Cousins, Jim

  Berry, Roger

  Cran, James

  Best, Harold

  Cranston, Ross

  Betts, Clive

  Cruddas, Jon

  Blackman, Liz

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Blizzard, Bob

  Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

  Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

  Curtis—Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Borrow, David

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Bradley, Rt Hon Keith (Withington)

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  David, Wayne

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Brennan, Kevin

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Dawson, Hilton

  Brown, Rt Hon Gordon

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  (Dunfermline E)

  Dhanda, Parmjit

  Brown, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Dobbin, Jim

  (Newcastle E & Wallsend)

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Dowd, Jim

  Browne, Desmond

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Bryant, Chris

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Burden, Richard

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Burgon, Colin

  Efford, Clive

  Burnham, Andy

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

  Ennis, Jeff

  Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

  Farrelly, Paul

  Cairns, David

  Field, Rt Hon Frank (Birkenhead)

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Fisher, Mark

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

  749

  Flint, Caroline

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Laxton, Bob

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  Lazarowicz, Mark

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Lepper, David

  Francis, Dr Hywel

  Leslie, Christopher

  Galloway, George

  Levitt, Tom

  Gapes, Mike

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Gilroy, Linda

  Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

  Goggins, Paul

  Linton, Martin

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Lloyd, Tony

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Love, Andrew

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Lucas, Ian

  Grogan, John

  Luke, Ian

  Hain, Peter

  Lyons, John

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  McCabe, Stephen

  Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

  McCartney, Rt Hon Ian

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Hanson, David

  McDonnell, John

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  McFall, John

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Havard, Dai

  McIsaac, Shona

  Healey, John

  McKechin, Ann

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  McKenna, Rosemary

  Hendrick, Mark

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Heppell, John

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Hesford, Stephen

  McWalter, Tony

  Hewitt, Rt Hon Ms Patricia

  McWilliam, John

  Heyes, David

  Mahmood, Khalid

  Hill, Keith

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Hinchliffe, David

  Mallaber, Judy

  Hodge, Margaret

  Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

  Hoey, Kate

  Mann, John

  Hood, Jimmy

  Marris, Rob

  Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Hope, Phil

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Marshall—Andrews, Robert

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Martlew, Eric

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Merron, Gillian

  Hughes, Beverley (Stretford)

  Miliband, David

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Moffatt, Laura

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Moran, Margaret

  Hurst, Alan

  Morgan, Julie

  Hutton, John

  Morley, Elliot

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Mountford, Kali

  Illsley, Eric

  Mullin, Chris

  Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

  Munn, Ms Meg

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Jamieson, David

  Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

  Jenkins, Brian

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Norris, Dan

  Johnson, Miss Melanie

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  (Welwyn Hatfield)

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Olner, Bill

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

  Organ, Diana

  Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Owen, Albert

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Jowell, Rt Hon Tessa

  Pearsor, Ian

  Joyce, Eric

  Perham Linda

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Picking, Anne

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Pickthall, Colin

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Pike, Peter

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Plaskitt, James

  Kemp, Fraser

  Pond, Chris

  Khabra, Piara S

  Pope, Greg

  Kidney, David

  Pound, Stephen

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Lammy, David

  Purchase, Ken

  750

  Purnell, James

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Rapson, Syd

  Taylor, Dr Richard (Wyre F)

  Raynsford, Rt Hon Nick

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Robertson, John

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  (Glasgow Anniesland)

  Tipping, Paddy

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  Todd, Mark

  Rooney, Terry

  Touhig, Don

  Ross, Ernie

  Trickett, Jon

  Ruane, Chris

  Truswell, Paul

  Ruddock, Joan

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Ryan, Joan

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Sawford, Phil

  Tynan, Bill

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  Wareing, Robert N

  Simon, Siôn

  Watson, Tom

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Watts, David

  Skinner, Dennis

  White, Brian

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  (Swansea W)

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Soley, Clive

  Wilson, Brian

  Southworth, Helen

  Winnick, David

  Squire, Rachel

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Wood, Mike

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Woodward, Shaun

  Stevenson, George

  Woolas, Phil

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Worthington, Tony

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Wright, David (Telford)

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Straw, Rt Hon Jack

  Wyatt, Derek

  Stringer, Graham

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Tami, Mark

  Mr. Tony McNulty and

  Taylor, Rt Hon Ann (Dewsbury)

  Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe.

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Cameron, David

  Allan, Richard

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies

  Amess, David

  (NE Fife)

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Carmichael, Alistair

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Cash, William

  Bacon, Richard

  Chidgey, David

  Baker, Norman

  Chope, Christopher

  Baldry, Tony

  Clappison, James

  Barker, Greg

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth

  Baron, John

  (Rushcliffe)

  Barrett, John

  Collins, Tim

  Berth, Rt Hon A J

  Conway, Derek

  Bellingham, Henry

  Cotter, Brian

  Bercow, John

  Cran, James

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  Blunt, Crispin

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Boswell, Tim

  Djanogly, Jonathan

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Dodds, Nigel

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Doughty, Sue

  Brady, Graham

  Duncan, Alan

  Brake, Tom

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Brazier, Julian

  Evans, Nigel

  Breed, Colin

  Ewing, Annabelle

  Brooke, Annette

  Fabricant, Michael

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Fallon, Michael

  Burnett, John

  Field, Mark (Cities of London)

  Burns, Simon

  Flook, Adrian

  Burstow, Paul

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Burt, Alistair

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Butterfill, John

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Cable, Dr Vincent

  Francois, Mark

  Calton, Patsy

  Gale, Roger

  751

  Garnier, Edward

  Letwin, Oliver

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Gibb, Nick

  Liddell—Grainger, Ian

  Gidley, Sandra

  Lidington, David

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Goodman, Paul

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Gray, James

  Loughton, Tim

  Grayling, Chris

  Luff, Peter

  Green, Damian (Ashford)

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Greenway, John

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Grieve, Dominic

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Malins, Humfrey

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Mates, Michael

  Hammond, Philip

  Maude, Rt Hon Francis

  Harris, Dr Evan (Oxford W)

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Harvey, Nick

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Hawkins, Nick

  Mercer, Patrick

  Hayes, John

  Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

  Heald, Oliver

  Moore, Michael

  Heath, David

  Moss, Malcolm

  Heathcoat—Amory, Rt Hon David

  Murrison, Dr Andrew

  Hendry, Charles

  Norman, Archie

  Hoban, Mark

  Oaten, Mark

  Holmes, Paul

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Horam, John

  Öpik, Lembit

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Osborne, George (Tatton)

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Ottaway, Richard

  Hughes, Simon (Southward N)

  Page, Richard

  Hunter, Andrew

  Paice, James

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Paterson, Owen

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Pickles, Eric

  Johnson, Boris (Henley)

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Prisk, Mark

  Keetch, Paul

  Pugh, Dr John

  Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles

  Randall, John

  (Ross Skye & Inverness W)

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Key, Robert

  Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Rendel, David

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Robathan, Andrew

  Knight, Rt Hon Greg (E Yorkshire)

  Robertson, Angus (Moray)

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Robertson, Hugh (Faversham)

  Lamb, Norman

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Lansley, Andrew

  Robinson, Iris (Strangford)

  Laws, David

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Leigh, Edward

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  752

  Rosindell, Andrew

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Trend, Michael

  Salmond, Alex

  Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

  Sanders, Adrian

  Tyler, Paul

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Selous, Andrew

  Viggers, Peter

  Shepherd, Richard

  Walter, Robert

  Simmonds, Mark

  Waterson, Nigel

  Simpson, Keith (Mid—Norfolk)

  Watkinson, Angela

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

  Webb, Steve

  Soames, Nicholas

  Weir, Michael

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Whittingdale, John

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Wiggin, Bill

  Spring, Richard

  Wilkinson, John

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Willetts, David

  Steen, Anthony

  Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

  Streeter, Gary

  Williams, Roger (Brecon)

  Stunell, Andrew

  Willis, Phil

  Swayne, Desmond

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Swire, Hugo

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Syms, Robert

  Wishart, Pete

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Yeo, Tim

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Younger—Ross, Richard

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion

  Mr. Peter Atkinson and

  Thurso, John

  Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown.

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

  AS-levels
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Angela Smith.]
  10.42 pm
  Mr. James Clappison: I am pleased to have this opportunity to raise AS-levels. Before doing so, I must welcome the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills, the hon. Member for Bury, South (Mr. Lewis), as this is his first appearance at the Dispatch Box after a well-deserved promotion. I am sure that the whole House will wish to join me in wishing him well.
  This subject is of great interest to pupils, parents and teachers—especially the thousands of pupils who have just taken AS-levels and the thousands who will commence studies later this year for next year's AS-level examinations. I declare something of an interest as the parent of a child who has just worked hard for her GCSE examinations and who is awaiting her results before, we hope, starting four AS-levels next year. Like many thousands of parents, I am waiting for my child to commence a course that will lead to examinations that have generated a wave of criticism from the pupils who have just taken them.
  My key skills in technology do not go very far, but one does not have to go far on the internet to find out what this year's AS-level students have to say about the exams. For example, Carolyn Briars—a pupil who has just taken her AS-levels—placed her views on the electronic internet for schools via the electronic telegraph. I am sure that she spoke for many others when she said:
  "The Government has made this year miserable for 17 year olds. We are the guinea pigs in an experiment that has robbed us of a year of our lives. Instead of having two years to study for our A levels, we've had A/S levels at the end of the first year. That means by the time we take our A levels, now called A2s, we will have had important exams for three years in a row. I am exhausted and fed up with it".
  Her comments are echoed by many others, including the widely respected John Clare, who says:
  "There is now no doubt that the introduction of A/S levels has been a real disaster and that the educational consequences will be far reaching".
  Those sentiments are finding an echo in classrooms, staff rooms and households throughout the country, and they are widely held in my constituency, as revealed by a survey that I conducted of several schools in Hertsmere. There was significant criticism of the way in which AS-levels were administered in their first year—there were a number of teething troubles, to say the least—but the survey revealed that the criticism goes beyond the details of administration and introduction.
  In schools' criticisms of AS-levels, some themes recur repeatedly. In particular, first, many heads feel that the introduction of AS-levels means that pupils will be over-assessed. Public examinations at ages 16, 17 and 18 are too much. Secondly, a common complain—it figures in almost all the reports that one reads—is that AS-levels have been introduced at the expense of extra-curricular activities. Schools throughout the country, including those in my constituency, are saying that because, as we all know, the lower sixth is a particularly important year for the development of extra-curricular activities and in the life of the school; in many schools, school activities depend on the contribution of the lower
  754
  sixth. In my constituency, schools have complained that pupils have given up valuable activities such as sport, Duke of Edinburgh award schemes, community work and choirs.
  Thirdly, another common theme of schools' responses is that AS-levels were taken at the expense of breadth of approach in chosen subjects. An example that has been quoted to me is that the study of English texts that are not set texts has been curtailed. Not the least significant factor in the curtailment of wider study has been the fact that in this summer term time has been lost to study leave and examination time for AS-levels.
  Fourthly, AS-levels are failing to meet their stated objective of broadening the sixth-form curriculum—an objective that many people support. That is an important issue, and it lies at the root of AS-levels. Interestingly, broadening the curriculum was the defence offered by the Secretary of State in the debate on the Gracious Speech last week.
  Ministers must face the fact that evidence suggests that a broader approach and a broader curriculum is not being achieved by AS-levels. Heads in my constituency tell me that most students are taking only four subjects at AS-level. Perhaps the Minister will confirm in writing, if he cannot do so tonight, that the majority of pupils taking AS-levels take only four subjects. Moreover, in very many cases, those four subjects involve students staying within the confines of either science or the humanities, without crossing the divide so as to bring about greater breadth.
  In all too many respects, what the Government have put in place with AS-levels resembles an unsatisfactory halfway house between the rigour and depth of the three A-levels of the past and the international baccalaureate, which requires pupils to study six subjects over two years, including both arts and sciences, and which also requires extra-curricular activities. AS-levels obviously do not approach that breadth. There are strong suggestions that many of the most academic schools believe that A-levels and AS-levels no longer involve the depth and rigour associated with A-levels in the past, and are considering a switch to the international baccalaureate.
  Against that background, it is hardly surprising that the new Secretary of State announced a review of AS-levels as one of her first acts on taking office, although it is perhaps a little surprising that the Government announced the inquiry into AS-levels while children were still taking them. In announcing the review, the Secretary of State accepted that the key skills qualification has caused particular difficulty and has indeed been a source of additional complexity, as many teachers throughout the country would testify—but the problems with AS-level go much further than that.
  It would certainly be a mistake to confine the inquiry to the key skills qualification only; it needs to go a great deal further. I hope that the review by the new head of the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority will go further. The new head of the QCA could do worse than to consult the old head of the QCA, Dr Nick Tate, who has become a headmaster since leaving that body. He is quoted as saying:
  "It wasn't until I came to take over a school that I began to think that perhaps we had all got it wrong. I don't think we fully thought out all the available options before we added a new tier of exams. It looks different when you are on this side of the fence"—
  an honest and honourable conclusion that might have been held by many of those who were on the other side of the fence place.

  755
  I want to put several requests to the Minister. I shall do so in short order, because I understand that the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Paul Holmes) is interested in this debate and, with permission, wants to make a brief contribution.
  I ask the Minister to place the Secretary of State's remit letter to the QCA in the public domain and to tell us whether the review will be confined to the details of the implementation of AS-levels, or whether it can go wider and examine the case for having the AS-level at all.
  I do not necessarily advocate the abolition of AS-levels, but it would be a good idea to consider the cases for and against them as part of the review, so that it could take a wide-ranging and full view of AS-levels. The QCA, and Ministers in particular, must face up to the wave of criticism that those exams have generated and the concerns of pupils and their parents who are about to undertake them. As matters stand, many would say that the introduction of the AS-level has been flawed and that it is an exam too far.
  10.53 pm
  Paul Holmes: I thank the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison), you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and the Minister for allowing me to contribute briefly to the debate.
  In my maiden speech on Friday, I said that as a teacher for 22 years, a head of a sixth form for the past 12 years and, until about seven weeks ago, a teacher of an AS-level course, I thought that AS-levels had been introduced far too quickly. They should have been introduced next September at the very earliest, rather than last September. There are various reasons why teachers, students and universities think that the experiment with AS-levels has been rushed and not properly thought out. Students have been over-worked and overloaded. They have had no time for the extra-curricular activities in which they used to participate in schools and to which they used to contribute so much.
  The exam timetable has been very badly planned in recent weeks. On several occasions, students have had two or three exams on the same day, often necessitating staying overnight with teachers because exams clashed the next day. The whole thing should have been more carefully thought through from that point of view. Universities have made it clear that they are not interested in the key skills qualification, and they are even starting to say that they will not consider the AS-level qualifications but will wait for the full A-level results, as under the old system.
  There has been no time for the sort of extra activities and the development of course work that normally took place in year 12 in sixth forms. Finally, planning has been far too rushed and there has been a lack of funding for the new courses. I had to scrap an innovative A-level course that had run very well for 20 years. I had to introduce a brand new one, with no extra money to buy new text books. The new text books were not even on the market because they had not yet been written for a course that had only just been introduced. The whole thing has been rushed, as the national curriculum was in the 1980s.
  10.55 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Mr. Ivan Lewis): I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) on securing this Adjournment debate. I thank him for his kind and generous remarks about my new position. I suspect that those generous and kind remarks will not continue in the months ahead, but we shall see.
  I respect the contribution made by the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Paul Holmes), on the basis that he has direct experience, having been a classroom teacher before entering this place.
  It is important that I begin my response by reminding hon. Members of the background to the introduction of A-level reforms. The need for the reforms was identified by the Conservative Government in 1996. The excellent principles underlining the changes that the Labour Government introduced are as relevant today as they were in 1996. Those principles of increased flexibility, breadth and relevance of learning for young people must not be cast aside in a rush to judgment or in an atmosphere of cheap party political point scoring.
  Indeed, there is nothing on the record to demonstrate that either of the Opposition parties, whose Members have contributed to the debate, raised those concerns in advance of the implementation of the reforms. So it is a bit rich of them, at this stage and with hindsight, to suggest that things should have been done differently. That is not to say that the Government are complacent or dismissive of the difficulties that young people and teachers have experienced during the first year of reform implementation. Indeed, I have spoken to young people and their parents in my constituency who have articulated concerns that I take very seriously indeed.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has acted decisively in responding to general concerns by asking the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority to undertake an immediate review of the reforms, including the new AS-level qualifications. The authority will consult a wide range of institutions, organisations and students to establish a true picture of how all the reforms of advanced level qualifications have worked out in reality. It will focus on both the strengths and the weaknesses of implementation in year 1.
  The QCA's report will be in two stages. The first, due by the middle of July, will identify the key issues and make recommendations for immediate action that schools and colleges can implement. The second stage, which the QCA will present at the end of this year, will be more comprehensive, covering the full range of issues associated with the "qualifying for success" reforms, including the experience and outcomes of this summer's examinations. It will also make recommendations on improving delivery of the key skills qualification. We will then work with all organisations concerned to ensure that our A-level examinations continue to meet the needs of our students, employers and higher education, and remain the best of their kind in the world.
  I can assure hon. Members that the review will address all the issues that they raised this evening. It is true that a significant number, but not all, of students have

  757
  complained of overload. On the other hand, recent independent surveys have shown the positive effect of augmented programmes in reducing the drop-out rate among college students. It is essential that we do not lose sight of the value for young people of greater flexibility. The chance to gain qualifications after one year of advanced study provides them with a better basis for decisions about the future—a real choice between using their qualifications to enter the world of work immediately or staying on and completing A-levels as a passport to higher education.
  We also acknowledge the need to evaluate the impact of the reform on teachers. It is important that the new qualifications maintain their rigour without placing unreasonable burdens of assessment on teachers. We expect the review to identify steps that can be taken to reduce burdens associated with the teaching and administration of the new system.
  I am acutely aware of the specific concerns that have been expressed about this year's exam timetable, but any delay of AS or A-level exams would have had a knock-on effect on the release of results. Conversely, had we brought forward exams, that would have resulted in less
  758
  teaching and revision time for students. The review will consider ways of ensuring that next year's exam timetable better meets students' needs.
  The review will also cover all aspects of the key skills element of the reforms, including assessment arrangements, whether level 3 and above add value for students, the use of proxy qualifications to replace all or part of a particular key skill and the scope for their extension from September 2001. Guidance on individual key skills will be revised in accordance with the review's findings. I assure the hon. Member for Hertsmere that we will act speedily to implement necessary changes as identified by the QCA review, and I shall consider his request that the remit letter be put in the public domain.
  A willingness to acknowledge difficulties and to move swiftly to secure remedies is the sign of a listening and mature Government who give the greater priority to the best interests of students and teachers than the froth of short-term party political expediency.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at one minute past Eleven o'clock.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Missing Israeli Service Men
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the representations he has made on behalf of missing Israeli service men. [834]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  This Government condemn hostage taking under any circumstances. On 3 May my right hon. Friend the previous Foreign Secretary and my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) met the families of the three soldiers kidnapped by Hizballah on 7 October and the reservist Colonel kidnapped on 4 October. The Government are doing what they can to help and have raised these cases, and continue to do so, with the relevant countries in the region pressing particularly for access to the hostages for the ICRC. We strongly support all efforts to secure the release of all hostages, particularly efforts led by the United Nations Secretary General.

  Entry Clearance
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what guidance he has given on the use of ministerial discretion in overturning the decisions of entry clearance officers overseas; and if he will place a copy of the guidance in the Library. [801]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Entry Clearance Officers (ECOs) consider entry clearance applications and apply the Immigration Rules to determine whether to grant or refuse entry clearance. In exceptional circumstances, an FCO Minister may exercise his/her discretion to overturn an ECO's decision, if the Minister considers that in fact the requirements of the Immigration Rules have, or have not, been met. This discretion extends only to decisions made in accordance with the Immigration Rules. The exercise of discretion to make a decision outside the Rules is only undertaken by a Home Office Minister.

  EU Enlargement
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if firm dates have been set for EU membership for(a) Cyprus and (b) Turkey. [307]

  Peter Hain
  No firm date has been set for the accession of any candidate country to the EU. However, the Gothenburg European Council agreed that, provided progress towards meeting the accession criteria continues at an unabated pace, the road map for enlargement should make it possible to complete negotiations by the end of 2002 for those candidates that are ready. The objective is that they should participate in the European Parliament elections of 2004 as members. The Government fully support this approach.
  88W
  Both Turkey and Cyprus are candidates for the EU. Cyprus is well advanced in its negotiations, having provisionally closed negotiations in 22 out of the 31 chapters of the EU's acquis communautaire. Turkey has yet to begin negotiations, as it has not fulfilled the Copenhagen political criteria (covering issues such as human rights, the rule of law and respect for and protection of minorities). The Government look forward to further progress by Turkey, in line with the priorities set out in the EU's Accession Partnership with Turkey.

  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has for discussions with his counterparts from(a) Latvia, (b) Lithuania, (c) Bulgaria, (d) Estonia, (e) Romania, (f) the Czech Republic, (g) Slovakia, (h) Poland and (i) Hungary on EU enlargement. [314]

  Peter Hain
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary met a number of his counterparts from the Central European EU applicant countries at the European Council meeting in Gothenburg on 15–16 June. The Government attach the utmost importance to the enlargement of the EU and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and I intend to expand our dialogue with the applicants in the coming months. Programmes of inward and outward visits are under discussion.

  Balkans
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has a strategy to achieve peace in(a) Kosovo, (b) Macedonia and (c) the Balkans in general; and if he will make a statement. [308]

  Mr. MacShane
  The UK is working closely with its partners and key international organisations to bring peace and stability to the Balkans.

  In Kosovo, we fully support the United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK) and the NATO-led Kosovo Force (KFOR) in their efforts, in accordance with UN Security Council resolution 1244, to secure the establishment of a democratic, tolerant, multi-ethnic society and to achieve lasting security for all of Kosovo's population. Elections to a Kosovo Assembly in November 2001 will deliver the provisional democratic self-governing institutions foreseen in UNSCR 1244, and will provide an important opportunity for the people of Kosovo to have a say in how Kosovo is to be run. Extremism and organised crime are significant regional problems, and are the biggest internal threat to stability in Kosovo. We support UNMIK and KFOR in their efforts to combat extremism and to promote law and order throughout the province.

  In Macedonia, we strongly support the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the country and condemn all acts of extremist violence. We welcome the efforts of EU High Representative Solana and NATO Secretary-General Lord Robertson to promote inter-ethnic dialogue and an overall political settlement. The British Ambassador in Skopje has played a key role in recent months as Mr. Solana's Special Representative. We welcome the 25 June decision of the EU's General Affairs Council to appoint a senior political figure, Francois Leotard, as Mr. Solana's new full-time resident representative in Skopje. In the light of recent events, we hope he will be able to encourage all the parties to take the political process forward rapidly, to

  89W
  head off the risk of further violence. We are discussing with Allies a possible NATO role in disarming NLA members in support of any peace agreement.

  The key elements of our regional strategy are fostering regional co-operation, inter-ethnic reconciliation and economic reform through the Stability Pact and the EU's Stabilisation and Association Process. As it made clear at the Zagreb summit, the EU has offered the incentives of potential EU membership, generous trade access and technical assistance in return for commitments to democracy, regional co-operation and economic reform. We also continue to take tough measures against extremists and organised crime whose activities continue to undermine the region.

  Kashmir
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the position of Her Majesty's Government regarding(a) the recent developments in Kashmir and (b) the scheduled meeting between Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee and Chief Executive General Pervez Musharraf. [309]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  We are concerned by the increasing violence in Kashmir. We have therefore welcomed the recent announcement that talks will take place between Prime Minister Vajpayee and President Musharraf in July. I hope that this leads to constructive and meaningful dialogue and progress on all the issues that divide India and Pakistan.

  Lord Levy
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the official visits to be made by Lord Levy. [310]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Lord Levy will undertake further visits as necessary.

  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has met Lord Levy since assuming office; and what plans he has for meetings with Lord Levy. [311]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The Secretary of State met Lord Levy on 19 June. He and Lord Levy will meet as necessary.

  Overseas Visits
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to visit(a) the Middle East, (b) the Balkans, (c) Russia and (d) Cyprus. [312]

  Mr. Straw
  I had planned to visit Macedonia on 26–27 June. However, in the light of developments overnight in Skopje, I decided it would not be right to go ahead now. But I am keen to make an early visit to Skopje and will do so at the earliest opportunity.

  I am currently considering proposals for visits to a number of other countries. The House will be informed when decisions have been made.

  Stability Pact
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the progress of the Stability Pact in South Eastern Europe. [313]

  Mr. MacShane
  The Stability Pact for South-East Europe, in which the EU plays a leading role is aimed at increasing economic confidence in the region, and bringing its states into Euro-Atlantic structures. It is making good progress and has taken an active role in the achievement of two regional agreements. On 27 June, on the eve of the Stability Pact Regional Table meeting in Brussels, Ministers from the region are expected to sign a Memorandum of Understanding on trade liberalisation, while representatives of Bosnia and Herzegovinia, Croatia and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia are expected to sign an agreement refugee returns. While concern remains over political developments, in Macedonia and the UK played a leading role in bringing the trade negotiations to a successful conclusion, supporting the Pact's Macedonian-led trade liberalisation group with expertise and technical assistance.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Sudan
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what representations she has made to the Government of Sudan over the recent bombings of civilians in the Nuba mountains. [778]

  Clare Short
  We have regularly expressed concern at the highest levels in Khartoum about incidents of aerial bombing of civilian targets. We do so bilaterally and also with our European partners through the EU/Sudan Political Dialogue. We also issued a statement, with our EU partners, calling for restraint by both sides in the wake of the renewed SPLA offensive in Bahr al Ghazal.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Lottery Funding
  Mr. David
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what steps she will take to direct Lottery funding to where it is most needed. [1272]

  Tessa Jowell
  I am announcing today a £150 million initiative to target Lottery money at those most deprived local authorities which have received less lottery funding than other parts of the UK. Over three years, £100 million from the Community Fund and £50 million from the New Opportunities: Fund will be provided to help some 50 areas. The initiative will be UK-wide and will begin in April 2002.

  Radio Licences
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will ensure that United Christian Broadcasting receives a radio broadcasting licence. [15]
  91W
  Dr. Howells
  The Radio Authority is responsible for awarding radio broadcast licences under the terms of the Broadcasting Acts. United Christian Broadcasters already hold two satellite radio licences issued by the Radio Authority.

  The Broadcasting Act 1990 disqualifies bodies whose objects are wholly or mainly of a religious nature from holding a terrestrial national analogue radio licence or a digital radio licence issued by the Radio Authority. The White Paper, "A New Future for Communications", announced our intention to lift the ban on religious bodies from holding local digital licences, at the next legislative opportunity. The White Paper also invited comments on relaxing the restrictions regarding the ownership of other licences by such bodies. We are currently considering the responses made. The Government will publish details of their proposals in a draft Bill as announced in the Queen's Speech.

  Sponsorship (Tobacco Companies)
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment she has made of the financial consequences for sport of the proposed ban on sponsorship by tobacco companies. [143]

  Tessa Jowell
  [holding answer 25 June 2001]The Government are committed to banning all forms of tobacco advertising and promotion, with certain limited exceptions, and will be introducing legislation in due course concerning tobacco sponsorship of sport. In the Draft Regulatory Impact Assessment to the Draft Tobacco (Prohibition of Advertising and Promotion) Regulations published in 1999, the annual cost of tobacco sponsorship of sport was estimated at £43 million. It is difficult to estimate the extent to which this sponsorship income would be lost as much may well be replaced by other sources.

  Wembley National Stadium Ltd.
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when the £20 million which Wembley National Stadium Ltd. agreed to pay back to Sport England will be returned.[105]

  Tessa Jowell
  [holding answer 25 June 2001]During discussions held in April, the Football Association reiterated its commitment to repay £20 million of the lottery grant invested in the Wembley Stadium project to Sport England in return for the removal of athletics. The timetable for repayment will depend on the conclusions of the review which Patrick Carter has agreed to undertake.

  Rate Relief (Sports Clubs)
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what discussions she has had with Brighton and Hove Council regarding the availability of discretionary rate relief for sports clubs. [137]

  Tessa Jowell
  [holding answer 25 June 2001]I have not had any discussions with Brighton and Hove Council regarding the availability of discretionary rate relief for sports clubs since my appointment. This issue was addressed in the Local Government Finance Green Paper and the Government are currently considering the responses to it. A White Paper will be published later this year.

  Cricket
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) what representations she has received regarding the need for legislative change to enable action to be taken against individuals who take part in cricket pitch invasions; and if she will make a statement; [110]

  (2) what discussions she has had with the England and Wales Cricket Board regarding crowd behaviour at one day international matches. [109]

  Tessa Jowell
  [holding answer 25 June 2001]I have received no representations on this subject. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Sport discussed the recent incidents at the matches played at Edgbaston and Headingley with the England and Wales Cricket Board prior to, and during, his visit to the one day international at Trent Bridge on 19 October. My right hon. Friend will shortly be arranging a meeting with the Board and the Home Office to discuss a range of issues concerning security at cricket matches.

  English Tourism Council
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans she has to restore a marketing function to the English Tourism Council. [103]

  Tessa Jowell
  [holding answer 25 June 2001]I have no such plans; however, I shall be taking stock of tourism policy, including the work of the English Tourism Council.

  The Tote
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans she has to transfer the Tote to the private sector; and if she will make a statement. [96]

  Tessa Jowell
  [holding answer 25 June 2001]The Government's proposals for the Tote were set out by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary in his statement to the House on 2 March last year. It remains our intention to bring forward legislation to provide for a sale when Parliamentary time allows.

  World Athletics Championships 2005
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment she has made of the ability of London to host the 2005 World Athletics Championships. [93]

  Tessa Jowell
  [holding answer 25 June 2001]A full assessment of London's ability to meet the IAAF requirements for the staging of the World Athletics Championships formed part of the successful bid for the 2005 Championships. The bid was prepared by a steering group which was co-ordinated by UK Sport and UK Athletics.

  Concessionary TV Licences
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what proposals she has to change the working of the concessionary scheme so that eligibility
  93W
  for concessionary TV licences is not lost when someone under 60 years moves into the beneficiary's sheltered housing. [926]

  Dr. Howells
  On 9 April this year, the Government announced their intention to introduce measures to preserve the rights of beneficiaries of the Accommodation for Residential Care concessionary television licence scheme who remain in accommodation provided or managed by a local authority, a housing association or a development corporation, when the social mix or the level of warden cover change. We are consulting with the BBC on the formulation of the necessary amendments to the regulations governing the concessionary scheme.

  Professional Sport (Drugs)
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what action she is taking to tackle the use of drugs by professional sportsmen and women. [780]

  Mr. Caborn
  This Government are firmly committed to combating doping in sport. We currently spend over £1 million a year on the UK anti-doping programme, which is delivered through UK Sport in conjunction with sports governing bodies. This programme includes both in and out-of competition testing of athletes, the development of a national policy framework, and the provision of education and information services for athletes and governing bodies. We are also working closely with European and International colleagues towards global harmonisation in the fight against doping in sport. In particular we are working to ensure a strong UK input into the work of the recently established World Anti-Doping Agency.

  British Board of Film Classification
  Mark Tami
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when the British Board of Film Classification's Annual Report will be published. [1271]

  Tessa Jowell
  The British Board of Film Classification's Annual Report is published today and I have arranged for copies to be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  UK Sports Institute
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many athletes have to date received assistance from the UK Sports Institute. [125]

  Tessa Jowell
  [holding answer 25 June 2001]The number of athletes to date that have received assistance from the UK Sport Institute is 1,416. This is broken down as 855 at UK level, 139 in Wales, 172 in Scotland and 250 in England.

HEALTH

  Palliative Care
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what financial support his Department gives services for palliative care; and how such funds are to be distributed. [12]
  94W
  Yvette Cooper
  The National Health Service supports the provision of specialist palliative care services by NHS service providers and voluntary organisations. The NHS Cancer Plan set out our commitment to increase NHS investment in specialist palliative care by £50 million by 2004 to end inequalities in access to care and enable the NHS to make a realistic contribution to the cost that hospices incur in providing agreed levels of service.

  Cancer networks are currently developing detailed service delivery plans, which will identify current provision and set out action plans for further development across all services including palliative care. These will be completed by the autumn.

  Haemophiliacs
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when recombinant genetically engineered haemophiliac treatment will be available to all patients in England. [306]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 26 June 2001]We have already instructed National Health Service trusts to provide recombinant clotting factors to new haemophilia patients and those under 16. Earlier this year we met representatives from the Haemophilia Alliance to discuss the case for extending this provision to all haemophilia patients in England and we are giving this careful consideration. However there is currently a worldwide shortage of recombinant clotting factors and, while this continues, it will not be possible to increase the availability of these products.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Departmental Services
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans she has for the services and functions carried out by her Department. [1165]

  Ms Hewitt
  I want to ensure that my Department is fully able to play its part in meeting the Enterprise and Productivity Challenge which the Government set last week for this Parliamentary session. I am therefore announcing today a review of the priorities and structure of my Department. I have asked to receive initial recommendations by mid September.

  In addition, on 13 June I announced a major review of my Department's support for business. Some £1 billion a year of support is made available to business and I want to ensure that this funding is properly targeted as part of my drive to help UK businesses get to the future first. The review of business support will focus on two strands: industrial support and manufacturing; and then wider business support. I hope to be able to announce first results by late summer.

  Both of these reviews will he undertaken in consultation with business and the Department's other stakeholders.

  Power Generation
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what plans the Government have to increase use of gas-fired power; and if she will make a statement; [838]
  95W
  (2) what plans the Government have to reduce dependence on coal-fired power; and if she will make a statement. [839]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Government have no plans to do either. Rather, the Government have established a fully competitive market structure for electricity generation in which both coal and gas are competing well.

  Yesterday my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced that he has asked the Performance and Innovation Unit to undertake a review of the strategic issues surrounding UK energy policy. The aim of the review will be to define objectives within that framework and to develop a strategy consistent with longer-term goals. Competitive markets will continue to be central to energy policy.

  Packaging Waste Regulations
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what responsibility her Department has for the packaging waste regulations; and if she will make a statement. [808]

  Mr. Wilson
  The UK packaging waste regulations implement European Parliament and Council Directive 94/62/EC on Packaging and Packaging Waste. This Directive aims both to reduce the environmental impact of waste packaging and to ensure the functioning of the single market with respect to packaging. The single market provisions of the Directive require member states to ensure that packaging may be placed on the market only if it complies with certain essential requirements and heavy metals limits. These measures are implemented in the UK through the Packaging (Essential Requirements) Regulations SI 1998 No. 1165 and enforcement powers have been given to local Trading Standards Departments. These regulations fall under my area of responsibility.

  In addition to my responsibilities for these regulations my department represents the UK at meetings of the technical adaptation committee set up under Article 21 of Directive 94/62/EC.

  The other provisions of Directive 94/62/EC are implemented in the UK through the Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging Waste) Regulations SI 1997 No. 648 (as amended in 1999 and 2000) and through similar legislation in the devolved administrations. My right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment has the responsibility for these regulations.

  Petrol Prices
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what powers she intends to take to control retail petrol prices in response to a fall in world supply prices. [17]

  Mr. Wilson
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry does not intend to seek further powers.

  The Government believe that free and open competition between fuel suppliers provides consumers with supplies at the best available prices. We are in regular contact with the industry on this and other issues.

  Icelandic Fisherman
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many former Icelandic fisherman have been paid compensation for the loss of their jobs, port by port; and what total sums have been paid out in each port. [1045]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The information requested, broken down by where claimants now live, is in the following table:

  Port

  Number of payments

  Compensation (£)

  Hull

  842

  10,247,847

  Grimsby

  194

  1,492,361

  Fleetwood

  170

  1,792,209

  Blackpool

  24

  205,933

  Cleethorpes

  46

  370,155

  Newcastle

  151

  1,873,305

  West Yorkshire

  84

  958,988

  Abrdeen

  17

  139,187

  Other

  142

  1,324,359

  Greenhouse Gases
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what further action she will be taking to encourage businesses to reduce their emissions of greenhouse gases. [411]

  Mr. Wilson
  The UK's Climate Change Programme, published last November, sets out the Government's approach to tackling climate change and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. For business this draws together a range of policies and measures. These include:Regulation, such as the implementation of the Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control Directive through the Pollution Prevention and Control regulations, requiring major industrial plants to take up best available techniques for energy efficiency;
  The Climate Change Levy package, which was introduced in April this year, including the associated climate change levy agreements for energy intensive industries and exemption for renewable sources of energy and good quality combined heat and power; and an enhanced capital allowances scheme;
  A UK Emissions Trading Scheme, due to start in April 2002, with Government funding of £215 million (net of corporation tax) over a five year period. to encourage companies to participate;
  Technology development through the formation of the Carbon Trust to deliver an integrated programme of support to accelerate the take up of low carbon technologies, and help business to prepare for a low carbon future.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Child Support
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many non-resident parents have been affected by the formula for the calculation of child support as outlined in schedules 1 and 2 to the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Act 2000. [368]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The new child support rates set out in schedules 1 and 2 to the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Act 2000 are intended radically to simplify the calculation of child maintenance due. These new rates will be introduced for new cases by April 2002,
  97W
  with existing cases transferring once the new system is shown to be working well. No parents have yet been affected by these changes.

  Publications
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions on what date he expects to publish the next edition of(a) "Households Below Average Income", (b) "Opportunity for All", the Government's annual report on poverty and (c) "Income-related benefits—estimates of take-up". [355]

  Malcolm Wicks
  "Households Below Average Income 1994–95 to 1999–2000" will be published on 13 July 2001. The next edition of "Opportunity for All" will be published in Autumn 2001. A date for publication of take-up estimates has not yet been determined.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Work Permits
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on what basis(a) Mr. Hector Sam and (b) Mr. Carlos Edwards were granted work permits; and what assessment has been made of the extent to which conditions attaching to their work permits have been fulfilled. [1044]

  Angela Eagle
  The work permit applications for Hector Sam and Carlos Edwards were approved after Wrexham Football Club submitted a sworn affidavit from a Trinidad and Tobago Football Association medical official stating that Carlos Edwards and Hector Sam were injured and unavailable for selection in some of the games used to calculate their playing records in the previous two years.

  In line with the policy relating to injuries, set out in the published criteria, those games were excluded from the calculations and the players subsequently met the criterion of playing in at least 75 percent. of competitive international matches in the previous two years prior to the applications being lodged with the Department.

  Work permits are issued to employers to employ an overseas national in a specific post based on the information contained in work permit application form. Where doubt is cast subsequently on that information, the Department investigates this. No concerns have been raised with the Department about Carlos Edwards and Hector Sam.

  Travellers
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce legislation to enable police and local authorities to prevent the occupation of parks, sports grounds and public open spaces by travellers and for their immediate eviction; and if he will make a statement. [734]

  Mr. Denham
  Both the police and local authorities have powers under the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 to direct travellers or other trespassers to leave land when the appropriate statutory requirements are met. We have no plans to amend this legislation at present although its effectiveness is kept under review.

  Immigration and Nationality Directorate
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many items of correspondence from hon. and right hon. Members are currently being processed by the Immigration and Nationality Directorate; what the average length of time is in dealing with such cases; what action he proposes to take to assist IND in dealing with the backlog of cases; and if he will make a statement; [9]

  (2) how many items of correspondence from hon. and right hon. Members were dealt with by the Immigration and Nationality Directorate in each of the last three years for which figures are available; what the levels of staffing were in each year; and if he will make a statement. [8]

  Angela Eagle
  Figures on the number of items of correspondence from Members of Parliament dealt with by the Immigration and Nationality Directorate (IND) and IND's staffing levels in the last three years are set out in the following table:

  1998

  1999

  2000

  Number of letters from MPs received by IND1

  8,518

  10,092

  10,566

  Number of staff in IND at end of calendar year

  5,229

  5,834

  8,538

  1 Excludes cases from MPs addressed directly to IND, for which corresponding figures are unavailable

  In May 2001, IND dealt with 698 items of such correspondence with an average turnaround time of 38 days. At the end of May 2001 the number of letters from MPs to Ministers awaiting a reply was 1,634, and the number of letters from MPs addressed directly to IND awaiting a reply on 21 June was 2,564. Priority is being given, with the use of overtime, to reducing the backlog of outstanding correspondence. IND also operates a MPs Hotline which provides MPs with a dedicated telephone inquiry point and is intended to reduce the need to correspond on immigration and nationality-related matters. Further significant improvements are being sought to the service, so that the time taken to reply to correspondence continues to be reduced.

  European Police Force
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about the plans for a European Police Force; and how many officers are to be seconded to it from UK police forces. [149]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 25 June 2001]There are no plans for a European Police Force. A concrete target for European Union policing capabilities in the context of civilian crisis management was agreed at last year's Feira European Council. In the event of the European Union carrying out a civilian policing operation, the United Kingdom would not be obliged to contribute any police officers, but would decide in the light of circumstances whether it was appropriate for the United Kingdom to contribute to the operation, and, if so, at what level of numbers.

  Departmental Transfers
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much his Department has spent on administration associated with the transfer of functions to and from other Departments since 8 June. [241]
  99W
  Mr. Blunkett
  [holding answer 25 June 2001]The information requested is not available.

  Sex Offences
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will place in the Library the responses to his Department's consultation on reform of the law on sex offences, "Setting the Boundaries". [192]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 25 June 2001]We received over 650 responses to "Setting the Boundaries". We are currently assessing the responses and now considering how best to summarise them.

  Police authority net pension costs as a percentage of net expenditure, 1996–97 to 2000–01

  Percentage

  Proportion of expenditure on pensions

  Police authority

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Avon and Somerset

  14.5

  15.6

  14.1

  14.8

  16.2

  Bedfordshire

  9.6

  11.5

  12.6

  11.9

  12.5

  Cambridgeshire

  11.0

  11.9

  12.0

  12.3

  13.0

  Cheshire

  8.3

  11.1

  9.9

  11.1

  11.3

  City of London

  11.6

  12.7

  18.1

  14.2

  15.4

  Cleveland

  11.9

  10.9

  13.8

  14.5

  15.2

  Cumbria

  12.9

  12.8

  14.9

  14.8

  15.4

  Derbyshire

  12.0

  12.8

  11.7

  11.3

  13.4

  Devon and Cornwall

  12.6

  13.5

  14.0

  14.3

  14.0

  Dorset

  11.2

  13.0

  13.1

  14.5

  14.0

  Durham

  11.8

  16.5

  11.1

  12.6

  12.0

  Dyfed Powys

  12.3

  12.0

  13.0

  12.9

  13.2

  Essex

  9.5

  10.6

  12.4

  12.0

  11.3

  Gloucestershire

  13.7

  13.2

  13.5

  13.4

  14.2

  Greater Manchester

  13.9

  16.5

  15.6

  15.9

  15.2

  Gwent

  9.8

  11.6

  9.9

  11.3

  10.8

  Hampshire

  9.5

  9.6

  10.1

  11.5

  10.8

  Hertfordshire

  8.8

  9.5

  9.2

  11.2

  9.8

  Humberside

  10.9

  13.2

  12.8

  13.3

  14.1

  Kent

  8.9

  11.3

  11.2

  11.3

  12.5

  Lancashire

  13.6

  14.2

  12.8

  12.6

  13.5

  Leicestershire

  11.1

  11.9

  11.3

  11.5

  12.1

  Lincolnshire

  12.5

  13.8

  14.6

  15.3

  16.3

  Merseyside

  15.8

  14.9

  14.5

  15.3

  15.7

  Metropolitan police

  10.1

  11.4

  12.7

  11.7

  13.3

  Norfolk

  12.8

  13.2

  12.2

  11.6

  12.6

  North Wales

  12.7

  13.6

  14.5

  13.7

  14.7

  Northamptonshire

  9.6

  12.4

  11.0

  10.7

  11.9

  North Yorkshire

  14.1

  14.5

  13.8

  16.5

  16.3

  Northumbria

  14.6

  15.4

  14.9

  13.9

  14.3

  Nottinghamshire

  11.1

  13.7

  13.4

  13.8

  13.7

  South Wales

  13.8

  17.6

  15.2

  14.3

  15.3

  South Yorkshire

  8.5

  12.1

  9.4

  10.7

  10.6

  Staffordshire

  14.3

  17.3

  13.7

  15.6

  14.8

  Suffolk

  13.2

  13.3

  13.0

  14.9

  13.5

  Surrey

  9.7

  13.7

  11.3

  10.3

  9.3

  Sussex

  12.8

  13.3

  14.2

  14.8

  16.0

  Thames Valley

  8.5

  9.8

  9.4

  9.2

  9.8

  Warwickshire

  8.9

  13.9

  13.0

  14.5

  15.3

  West Mercia

  10.2

  11.0

  12.4

  12.2

  13.3

  West Midlands

  10.2

  12.2

  11.5

  11.3

  11.9

  West Yorkshire

  11.5

  13.0

  13.2

  14.1

  14.2

  Wiltshire

  13.0

  10.4

  10.9

  11.1

  11.1

  Total England and Wales

  11.3

  12.7

  12.7

  12.7

  13.3

  Source:

  CIPFA Actuals 1996–97 to 1999–2000 and Estimates 2000–01

  Police Pensions
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the proportion of expenditure on pensions for each police force in England and Wales for each of the last five years for which figures are available and his estimates for each of the next five years. [157]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 25 June 2001]The proportion of each police force net expenditure attributable to net pension costs for the last five years is given in the table.

  Projections by police authorities of future pension costs were taken fully into account in provisions made in Spending Review 2000.

  Private Security Personnel
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department under what special circumstances private security operatives would have the powers of a constable listed in paragraph 3.159 of "Criminal Justice: The Way Ahead" (Cm 5074); and if he will make a statement. [158]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 25 June 2001]Private security personnel, working alongside the police in providing greater public reassurance, will:"not generally have the power of the constable"
  ("Criminal Justice: The Way Ahead" (Cm 5074) para. 3.159). Statutory provisions relating to harbours, docks and public parks allow supervisory staff to be sworn as constables, but there are no plans to give private security personnel the powers of constables.

  Home Detention Curfew Scheme
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list, indicating the crimes committed and length of sentence received and served, the prisoners released on the home detention curfew scheme before they had served the requisite period; and if he will make a statement. [218]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 25 June 2001]I refer the hon. Member to the answers given by the former Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) to the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) on 2 May 2000,Official Report, column 74W, and to the hon. Member on 8 May 2000, Official Report, column 312–13W.

TRANSPORT, LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND THE REGIONS

  Aircraft Noise
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what his timetable is for taking forward policy in the light of the consultation paper "On control of aircraft noise from civil aircraft". [2]

  Mr. Jamieson
  My Department received some 590 responses to this detailed consultation. We shall announce our conclusions and bring forward legislation in due course.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what action is being taken to reduce the levels of street homelessness in major cities. [341]

  Ms Keeble
  The Prime Minister set the tough target of reducing the number of people sleeping rough in England to as near to zero as possible and by at least two thirds by 2002.

  In 1998, there were approximately 1,850 people rough sleeping in England. In June 2000, published figures indicated that approximately 1,180 people were sleeping rough, (546 in London and 634 outside of London). This
  102W
  represents a 36 per cent. reduction. The unit will publish updated figures in due course in relation to counts carried out this year.

  "Coming in from the Cold". the Government's strategy on tackling rough sleeping, outlined a raft of new policies and services to deliver the target which are now all in place in all major cities.

  These include helping people sleeping rough on the streets with drug, alcohol and mental health problems; helping former rough sleepers rebuild their lives through education, training and employment; and preventing a new generation of rough sleepers particularly those leaving care, the armed forces and prison.

  Haulage Industry
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on the road haulage industry. [418]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Government are committed to working with the road haulage industry to deliver a sustainable distribution system. The 2001 Budget announced a programme of measures, discussed in the Road Haulage Forum and supported by the key partners. to help the industry modernise and improve its environmental performance. We are now working with all parties to implement these. The next meeting of the forum, to be chaired by the Minister for Transport, will take place on 5 July.

  Planning Gain
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what proposals he has to improve regulations governing section 106 planning gain. [350]

  Ms Keeble
  We intend to introduce shortly amendments to the Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) Order 1995 to require all section 106 agreements related to planning applications to be shown on Part of the planning register.

  We are committed to reviewing the system for agreeing planning obligations and we propose to issue a consultation document later this year.

  Climate Change
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans the Government have to alter planning policy guidance to promote renewable energy as part of the UK's climate change strategy. [807]

  Ms Keeble
  It is already our policy to promote a positive approach to planning for renewable energy as part of the UK's climate change strategy. Last year we initiated the preparation of regional assessments and targets for renewable energy provision to encourage a more strategic approach to planning at regional and local levels.

  We intend to review the existing planning policy guidance note on ft renewable energy (PPG 22) as soon as practicable.

  Rural Services
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans the Government have to increase the scope of business rate relief for rural services. [836]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The Rating (Former Agricultural Premises and Rural Shops) Act 2001 will introduce a new scheme of rate relief for new, small-scale farm diversification enterprises. It will also extend the mandatory element of the village shop rate relief scheme to all food shops with rateable value of no more than £9,000 in a designated rural settlement with population up to 3,000. We intend to commence the provisions of the Act in the near future. At the same time, we will increase the flat rate discount for premises used for the breeding and rearing of horses and ponies to £3,000 rateable value.

  Since 5 April 2001, mandatory relief under the village shop rate relief scheme has been available to the sole pub or petrol station with rateable value of no more than £9,000 in a designated rural settlement with population up to 3,000. Earlier this year we consulted on a proposal to extend the agricultural rating exemption to ensure it included share and contract farming and machinery rings. We are currently considering this in the light responses received. The extension would require primary legislation.

  Local Government
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local government and the Regions what progress has been made by the taskforce on local government procurement announced in July 2000. [1457]

  Mr. Raynsford
  In July last year the Government announced the establishment of a joint DETR/Local Government Association taskforce to review procurement in local government in the light of the requirements of best value. This Government have given a clear commitment to improving public services and procurement lies at the heart of better services for local people.

  The taskforce has completed its work and its report, "Delivering Better Services for Citizens", is being published today. Copies of the report have been placed in the House Libraries.

  I am grateful for the thorough manner in which Sir Ian Byatt, the chairman, and the members of the taskforce have conducted this review. The report provides a challenging analysis of current procurement practice and makes a number of recommendations for change. It is an important contribution to the debate on the modernisation of local government and the provision of high quality services to local people.

  The DTLR and the LGA have agreed to consult jointly on the report. I intend to provide a detailed response to its findings in the autumn, together with an action plan for implementation.

  Ordnance Survey Executive Agency
  Andrew Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local government and the Regions what agency performance targets have been set for the Ordnance Survey Executive Agency for the financial year 2001–02. [1104]
  104W
  Ms Keeble
  The following performance targets have been set for Ordnance Survey in 2001–02:

  1. To achieve a revenue target of £85.6 million (excluding the National Interest Mapping Service Agreement).

  2. To achieve an efficiency gain of 6 per cent. over the period April 2000 to March 2004. The target for 2001–02 is 3 per cent. against the baseline of 1999–2000.

  3. 93 per cent. of small scale products ordered are despatched with two working days of receipt of order: 98 per cent. are despatched within 10 working days.

  4. To increase the number of users of Ordnance Survey websites by 50 per cent.

  5.99.5 per cent. of significant real world features are represented in the database within six months of completion.

  6. To reduce the carbon emissions from the Ordnance Survey Headquarters building by at least 1 per cent. year on year.

  These targets reflect Ordnance Survey's continuing commitment to customers and to improved value for many of its stakeholders.

TREASURY

  VAT (Small Businesses)
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to raise the VAT threshold for small businesses to £100,000; and if he will make a statement. [28]

  Mr. Boateng
  There are no plans to increase the VAT registration threshold to £100,000. As announced in the statement on 18 June by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on enterprise and productivity, Customs are now consulting on a new VAT flat rate scheme. This will make it easier for many smaller businesses with taxable turnover of up to £100,000 to calculate the amount of VAT due and simplify their bookkeeping requirements.

  Recreational Clubs
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what increases in rent are being sought by the Crown Estate Commissioners from recreational clubs. [342]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The Crown Estate has as its tenants a large variety of recreational clubs across its marine, rural and urban estates, including yacht clubs, golf clubs and athletic clubs.

  The rents paid by such clubs, and any increases, are dependent upon the terms of the lease, market conditions and comparable land uses, and are settled on a case-by-case basis.

  Child Care
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what tax and benefit measures he plans to introduce to increase the level of support for parents with children of pre-school age who choose to stay at home and look after their children. [934]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The extra support which the Government have introduced through the Working Families Tax Credit and the Children's Tax Credit has greatly increased the choices available to parents about how to combine work and caring for children. The largest
  105W
  gains have been for families with younger children. A single-earner family with two children under 11, and with earnings of around £12,500 a year, is now around £3,000 a year better off than in 1997.

  From April 2002, the Children's Tax Credit will be increased by a further £10 a week, making it worth up to £1,000 a year for around 500,000 families each year in the year of a child's birth. At the same time the Sure Start Maternity Grant, which is available to families on benefit or on WFTC, will rise to £500.

  In 2002 and 2003 increases in statutory maternity pay will guarantee a new minimum income for mothers in the first six months after the birth of a child. A new right to paid paternity leave will help fathers who wish to spend time at home with a new baby.

DEFENCE

  Porton Down
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on his Department's inquiry into the use of service personnel for research at Porton Down supervised by Professor Ian Kennedy; if individual volunteers who have claimed compensation will be invited to contribute to the inquiry; if the conclusions reached by the Wiltshire police and the information held by the hon. Members who have pursued the matter in the House will be noted by the inquiry; when he expects the inquiry to be complete; and if all the information that is obtained will be published in full. [731]

  Dr. Moonie
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell (Mr. Taylor) on I May 2001,Official Report, columns 550–51W. The historical survey of the Porton Down volunteer programme will gather information from all source material. This will be largely documentary but will also include information from former Porton Down volunteers.

  The historical survey is expected to report in the summer of 2002. The findings of the survey will be published.

  Cyprus
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what were the findings of the investigation into the death of his Department's civil servant found near Limassol, Cyprus on 17 May; what work he was engaged in at the time; and what conclusions have been reached by the Cyprus police. [729]

  Dr. Moonie
  The civil servant, Mr. M. Morgan, died within the Western Sovereign Base Area (SBA) and as such fell within the jurisdiction of the SBA police force. It is therefore the SBA police, rather than the Cypriot police, who have carried out the investigation into his death.
  106W
  This investigation is now complete and the results have been provided to HM Coroner for his consideration at an inquest into Mr. Morgan's death. No date has yet been set for this inquest, pending receipt of a full report from the UK pathologist. As is usual in these circumstances, details of the police investigation will not be made available until after the Coroner's inquest.

  Mr. Morgan was the Defence Estates Adviser (Works) in Cyprus providing professional building advice to British Forces Cyprus. This role required Mr. Morgan's close involvement in the transition from contractorised Works Services Management to an in-house arrangement pending the implementation of Prime Contracting in Cyprus.

  Aircraft XV208
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if a BAE 146–300 aircraft is(a) owned by and (b) leased to the Meteorological Office to perform research previously done with XV208 Snoopy; what is (i) the lowest operating level and (ii) its highest operating level; and what is the purchase or leasing cost, the cost of on-board equipment and the (A) hourly and (B) annual running cost of the aircraft. [849]

  Dr. Moonie
  This is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Meteorological Office. I have asked him to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Peter Ewins to Mr. Robert Key, dated 27 June 2001:

  I am replying to your question to the Secretary of State for Defence about the BAe 146–300 aircraft that will perform research previously done with Hercules XV208, otherwise known as Snoopy. This matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief Executive of the Met Office.

  BAe Systems are currently modifying and fitting out the aircraft to undertake atmospheric research for both the UK University Community and the Met Office. The aircraft is owned by BAE Systems and will be operated under a service provision contract in the first instance with the University of Manchester Institute for Science and Technology (UMIST) and then the Natural Environment Research Council (NERC) for a total period of at least 10 years. The Met Office use of the aircraft will be through a partnership agreement with UMIST and NERC.

  The BAe 146–300 will be capable of operating at heights of between 100 feet and 35,000 feet above sea level with short periods at 50 feet. The highest operating level, in particular, will allow access to a region of the atmosphere that it is critically important to atmospheric researchers.

  Met Office equipment being transferred from Hercules XV208 to BAe 146–300 initially cost in the order of £1.5 million. New and existing on-board instrumentation is also being provided by the University Community.

  The leasing, hourly and annual operating costs of the BAe 146–300 are commercial-in-confidence. However, the consequential savings to the Met Office of moving to shared use of the BAe 146–300 will be £8 million over the next 10 years.

  Mr. Key
  To as k the Secretary of State for Defence what the current location is of aircraft XV208; and what is its current role. [847]

  Dr. Moonie
  Aircraft XV208 is currently based at the Defence Evaluation Research Agency, soon to be QinetiQ, site at Boscombe Down. The aircraft is currently being kept in flying condition while future business for it is explored.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Specialist School Status
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many specialist schools with an arts specialism have so far been designated; and how many she intends to designate by January 2002. [797]

  Mr. Timms
  Ninety-one arts colleges have so far been designated. We expect the next designations will be made in January 2002, but it is not possible to say how many. Decisions will be taken at the same time as decisions on the designation of language, sports and technology colleges and will depend in part on the relative quality of applications across the categories.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many specialist status comprehensive schools have been designated. [822]

  Mr. Timms
  Of the 684 designated specialist schools, 616 are comprehensive, 30 are grammar, 29 are secondary modern and nine are special schools.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment her Department has undertaken of the ability of schools to raise £50,000 to support a school's bid for specialist school status. [932]

  Mr. Timms
  No formal assessment has been undertaken into the ability of schools applying for specialist school status to raise sponsorship. We recognised there were difficulties with the original £100,000 requirement and reduced this to £50,000 in 1999. My Department grant aids the technology colleges and youth sport trusts, which provide advice to schools about raising sponsorship and raise funds themselves to support applicant schools. The network of 684 specialist schools shows that applicant schools across the country, including those from rural and inner city areas, have successfully raised the sponsorship required. We shall keep the sponsorship criteria under review.

  Acquired Brain Injury
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what progress has been made on(a) inclusion of information on acquired brain injury in the new guidance on the education of sick children and (b) inclusion of guidance for health professionals on the particular special educational need; of children with acquired brain injury. [783]

  Mr. Timms
  We will be including information on acquired brain injury in the new guidance on the education of sick children to heighten the awareness of the educational needs of pupils with ABI. The new guidance is currently being drafted and it is expected that it will be issued in September 2001.

  The importance of close liaison between education and health services to cover all issues that may effect learning for children and young people with acquired brain injury will be highlighted in guidance on the role of health professionals to be issued in the summer.

  Creative Writing
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what steps she is taking to ensure creative writing skills are developed at an early age. [798]

  Mr. Timms
  We are committed to ensuring that children enjoy writing and develop the skills they need in order to express themselves clearly and creatively. The National Literacy Strategy "Framework for Teaching" ensures that primary school pupils are taught to write independently from an early stage, and that they are given opportunities to undertake a wide range of writing. In May 2001, we published practical guidance for teachers of four to seven-year-olds on "Developing Early Writing", which emphasises the role of imaginative play and talk in improving writing in the first years of school.

  Middle Schools
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will make a statement on her policy towards middle schools. [800]

  Mr. Timms
  The Government's view remains that the relative merits of three and two-tier systems of school organisation are a matter for local discussion and determination. Schools should be organised in a way which supports the delivery of the highest possible standards of education and which also reflects parental preference. Local education authorities and school governing bodies, rather than central Government, are best placed to decide on which pattern of provision is most effective for their area.

  Teacher Numbers (Yorkshire)
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many(a) primary and (b) secondary school teachers were working in (i) North Yorkshire and (ii) City of York local education authorities on 1 May and projected for 1 May 2002. [34]

  Mr. Timms
  The full-time equivalents of regular teachers (excluding short-term supply) employed in the maintained sector at January each year were as follows:

  2000

  20011

  Nursery/primary

  North Yorkshire

  2,170

  2,230

  City of York

  650

  650

  Secondary

  North Yorkshire

  2,560

  2,590

  City of York

  640

  660

  Total

  North Yorkshire

  4,730

  4,820

  City of York

  1,290

  1,320

  1Provisional

  Note:

  Totals may not be the sum of the component parts because of rounding

  Regular teacher data are collected in January each year. Figures for May 2001 and projected figures for May 2002 will not be collected or estimated.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Sellafield
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will place in the Library a copy of the report by Arthur D. Little Consultants on the economic case for the Sellafield MOX plant. [955]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 26 June 2001]Yes. We intend to publish the report as soon as possible, excluding only that material—such as contract prices—whose publication would cause unreasonable commercial damage to BNFL's commercial operations or to the economic case for the MOX plant itself. We propose to allow people four weeks for comment.

  Water Abstraction
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what decisions she has reached about the possible use of economic instruments in relation to water abstraction. [1273]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Department is publishing tomorrow a paper entitled "Tuning Water Taking". This sets out Government decisions following consultation last year on the use of economic instruments in relation to water abstraction in England and Wales. Copies will be placed in the Library of the House.

  The paper confirms that water abstraction charges will remain limited to recovery of the Environment Agency's water resources management costs. The agency is expected to consult by June 2002 on changes to the current charging scheme within this overall cost ceiling. The paper goes on to say that voluntary abstraction licence trading will be made easier by a variety of means, within the Environment Agency's existing powers, while ensuring that trading does not harm the water environment.

WALES

  Children's Commissioner
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the work of the Children's Commissioner. [527]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I was delighted that the Children's Commissioner for Wales Bill received Royal Assent on 11 May. The Children's Commissioner for Wales Act 2001 radically widens the Commissioner's role and extends his functions to a far greater range of public bodies, including the Assembly, who provide services or exercise devolved functions.

  Peter Clarke took up office on 1 March and his full powers are scheduled to commence this summer, following Assembly Commencement Orders and Regulations. He has been spending the interim months setting up the practical arrangements for his office.

  New Deal
  Dr. Francis
  T o ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions about the extension of the new deal in Wales. [528]

  Mr. Touhig
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State regularly attends meetings with ministerial colleagues, including the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, and I am planning a series of introductory meetings with my ministerial colleagues.

  The Government's new deal programme has proved a very real success. We are keen to build on this success by extending the new deal 25+ to all over-25s who have been on jobseeker's allowance for at least 18 months; extending new deal for lone parents and extending new deal for disabled people to all those claiming invalidity benefit.

  Inward Investment
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of Wales what discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry about the factors which attract inward investment to Wales. [530]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I have regular meetings with my ministerial colleagues, including the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. In addition, ministerial colleagues and I gave evidence to the Welsh Affairs Committee earlier this year on the role of the UK Government in promoting Wales abroad, including the partnership between the Government, British Trade International and the Welsh Development Agency in attracting inward investment.

  Wales has one of the most impressive foreign direct investment track records worldwide, which is a testimony to the high skills levels of the workforce and a range of training programmes, infrastructure, land, property, business services and financial packages. In particular, the securing by the UK Government of Objective 1 status and Tier 1 status under the Assisted Areas map for West Wales and the Valleys allows the Government and the National Assembly to deliver a whole range of financial benefits to companies in that area.

  Corus
  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has held with the First Secretary in the National Assembly about the development of new employment opportunities in communities affected by the Corns job cuts in Wales. [531]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The Government and the National Assembly for Wales responded quickly to the needs of the steel community with measures of help for steelworkers and their communities affected by Corns decisions. Government-funded measures include on-site job shop centres, as well as access to job vacancies and a job transition scheme, providing intensive advice and help with job search as well as early access to training programmes.

  Additionally, the National Assembly for Wales announced a £50 million package of regeneration and training from the Welsh block to help create jobs and regenerate the communities affected by Corns decisions and has set up an executive group of the Wales Steel Task

  111W
  Force to implement schemes. This may also wish to take advantage of the wide-ranging package of measures and operating aids announced in the B fidget to encourage enterprise, tax incentives for urban regeneration and more spending on public services.

  Tourism
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent discussions he has had with the First Secretary about tourism operators in Wales; and if he will make a statement. [532]

  Mr. Paul Murphy: I have regular discussions with the First Secretary. In light of the current situation with foot and mouth disease, tourism has of course figured more prominently than ever in these discussions.

  Additionally, the Under-Secretary of State represents the Wales Office on the Government's Rural Task Force, a body on which the Assembly is also represented. As a result of the work of this task force, several initiatives have been announced to assist tourism and rural industries more generally where they have been affected by foot and mouth disease.

  Carers
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will meet the First Secretary to discuss provision for carers in Wales. [533]

  Mr. Touhig
  My right hon. Friend and I will continue to have regular meetings with the First Secretary and Cabinet colleagues to discuss a range of issues, including the provision of services in Wales The Assembly is committed to improving the health and well-being of carers in Wales. On 12 June the Assembly voted to commence the Carers and Disabled Children Act 2000 and approved £3.7 million local authority special grant spending for carers services and breaks. On the same day the Assembly published its first annual report on the Carers' Strategy in Wales Implementation Plan.

  Public Services (Funding)
  Mr. Havard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent discussions he has had with the First Secretary about the mechanism for calculating the level of Government funding for public services in Wales until 2004.[535]

  Mr. Touhig
  My right hon. Friend meets the First Secretary regularly on a range of matters. Last year's Spending Review added some £2 billion to the funding the Assembly will receive by 2003–04 for the delivery of services to Wales.

  Business (Promotion)
  .Albert Owen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he plans to meet the business community in north—west Wales to discuss Government policy on the promotion of business in the area.[536]

  Mr. Touhig
  In November last ear, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales met members of the North Wales Economic Forum, which included representatives of business in north Wales.
  112W
  Both the Secretary of State for Wales and I plan to visit north Wales shortly.

  Education
  Dr. Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the number of staff in his Department with responsibility for education.[534]

  Mr. Touhig
  All staff working on policy issues in my Department have responsibility for a number of subject areas. However, within my Social Affairs Policy Branch, I have three members of staff whose remit includes education matters.

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with the First Secretary of the National Assembly about the education system in Wales.[537]

  Mr. Touhig
  My right hon. Friend regularly meets the First Minister and Cabinet colleagues to discuss a range of issues including the education system in Wales.

  I also am looking forward to holding regular meetings with the Assembly Minister for Education and Lifelong Learning to discuss the provision of education in Wales.

  My right hon. Friend addressed the National Assembly yesterday on the Queen's speech, which included an education Bill. The provision and improvement of education services in Wales is a priority of this Government.

  Employment
  Kevin Brennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent discussions he has had with the First Secretary about employment levels in Wales. [538]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I regularly meet with the First Secretary of the National Assembly for Wales and discuss a wide range of issues including employment.

  The Government's handling of the economy has provided the right conditions for growth and has seen employment in Wales rising by 34,000 since May 1997. Additionally the Government's new deal scheme has proved an enormous success enabling a 65 per cent. fall in the number of 18 to 24-year-olds unemployed and claiming the jobseeker's allowance for six months or more since new deal was launched throughout Wales.

  Tuition Fees
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the Rees report on tuition fees and student hardship.[5391

  Mr. Touhig
  The report of the Independent Investigation Group on Student Hardship and Funding in Wales was published on 14 June.

  I understand that the National Assembly, which commissioned the report, will consider its recommendations very carefully. Any suggestions for changes to the existing system of student hardship and funding will be considered by the UK Government at the appropriate time.
  113W
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has held with the Prime Minister on student fees since the publication of the Rees report.[542]

  Mr. Touhig
  Neither my right hon. Friend or I have discussed the report of the Independent Investigation Group on Student Hardship and Funding in Wales with the Prime Minister since its recent publication on 14 June.

  I understand that the National Assembly, which commissioned the report, will consider its recommendations very carefully. Any suggestions for changes to the existing system of student hardship and funding will be considered by the UK Government at the appropriate time.

  Foot and Mouth
  . Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent discussions he has had with the First Secretary on the impact of foot and mouth disease on the rural economy in Wales; and if he will make a statement.[540]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I maintain close contact with my right hon. Friend the First Secretary on a variety of issues, including foot and mouth disease.

  My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Wales is a member of the UK Government Rural Task Force set up to examine the effect of the outbreak of foot and mouth disease across the rural economy as a whole. As a result of the work of the task force, several initiatives have been announced to assist rural industries more generally where they have been affected by the impact of foot and mouth disease.

  .Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with the First Secretary about the impact of foot and mouth disease on the Welsh agriculture industry.[544]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I have weekly meetings with the First Secretary to discuss a wide range of issues, including foot and mouth disease.

  My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Wales is a member of the UK Government Rural Task Force set up to examine the effect of the rural economy as a whole. As a result of the work of the task force several initiatives have been announced to assist rural industries more generally where they have been affected by the impact of foot and mouth disease.

  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with the First Secretary on policy initiatives to deal with the impact of foot and mouth disease in Wales.[546]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I have had regular discussions with the First Secretary with regard to the policy initiatives to deal with the impact of foot and mouth disease in Wales and have visited affected areas in Wales with the First Secretary.

  All efforts are focused on taking action to ensure the disease is contained and eradicated as quickly as possible. The action being taken is severe but the best way to beat the outbreak.

  Manufacturing Competitiveness
  Patrick Mercer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent discussions he has had about manufacturing competitiveness in Wales.[541]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  Only yesterday I attended the launch of the Transport and General Workers Union policy statement on manufacturing, "Manufacturing Matters", and was able to discuss a range of manufacturing issues with a range of organisations. I also hold regularly discussions with the First Secretary of the National Assembly for Wales and with my ministerial colleagues.

  The Government are committed to improving manufacturing competitiveness across the whole of the UK by helping established industries to modernise and compete in new global markets, by encouraging enterprise and by creating a stable macroeconomic climate.

  Rural Economy
  Michael Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he will next meet the First Secretary of the National Assembly for Wales to discuss the state of the rural economy in Wales.[545]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I have weekly meetings with the First Secretary on a wide range of issues, including the state of the rural economy, particularly in light of the current foot and mouth outbreak in Wales. Foot and mouth has had a devastating effect on an already fragile industry. The Assembly continues to explore initiatives for assisting the rejuvenation of the rural economy in Wales.

  My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Wales is a member of the UK Government Rural Task Force set up to examine the effect of the outbreak of foot and mouth disease across the rural economy as a whole. As a result of the work of the Task Force many initiatives have been announced to assist a range of rural industries affected by the impact of foot and mouth disease.

  Census
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the First Secretary on the census in Wales.[547]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I have regular discussions with my Cabinet colleagues and with the First Secretary on a range of issues relevant to Wales.

  The National statistician has confirmed that the National Assembly will be formally consulted about the content of the 2011 census form in Wales.

  Police Recruitment
  Mr. David
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with the Home Secretary about the recruitment of police officers in Wales.[549]

  Mr. Touhig
  My right hon. Friend meets regularly with the Home Secretary to discuss a range of issues including the recruitment of police officers in Wales.

  Miners' Compensation
  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent discussions he has had with the Minister for Industry and Energy regarding the processing of outstanding claims for miners' compensation in Wales.[548]

  Mr. Touhig
  I met my hon. Friend the Minister for Industry and Energy to discuss these matters last week. I am sure that we will continue to build on the significant progress made to date.

  As the hon. Gentleman will be am are, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales established the Welsh sub-group of the Coal Health Claims Monitoring Group specifically to address coal health issues in Wales and to report back to the GB-wide group. I am convinced the measures discussed, and the actions so far agreed, will further speed up the processing of coal health claims.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Damages Act
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when the Lord Chancellor proposes to set a discount rate under the Damages Act 1996; and if he will make a statement.[48]

  Mr. Wills
  The Lord Chancellor has today laid before Parliament an Order under section 1 of the Damages Act 1996 setting the discount rate at 2.5 per cent. This rate will come into effect on 28 June 2001.

  The Lord Chancellor's reasons are set out in the document "Section 1 of the Damages Act 1996: Reasons for Decision", copies of which have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  OFT Report (Legal Profession)
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what arrangements the Lord Chancellor is making to consult on the recommendations of the OFT report on the legal profession.[551

  Mr. Wills
  The Government have said that they recognise the matters raised by the OFT Report "Competition in Professions" are complex areas and that they will consult on the report, and consider comments on the Director General of Fair Trading's analysis before taking further action. My officials are working closely with their colleagues in the Department of Trade and Industry and other Government Departments to prepare a consultation paper, which we plan to issue in the autumn.

  Statutory Legacy
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when the Lord Chancellor will decide whether the maximum limits for the statutory legacy should be reviewed, so as to reflect changes in house prices and the rate of inflation.[261]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Lord Chancellor is aware that the levels of statutory legacy in interstate succession have not been reviewed since 1993, and he has asked his officials to carry out a consultation exercise on whether the limits should be raised, and if so, to what level.

  Children and Families Service
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what assessment she has made of the launch of the children and families Service.[19]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (CAFCASS), a non-departmental public body, is a new dedicated service to safeguard and promote the best interests of children involved in family court proceedings. CAFCASS was only launched on 1 April 2001 and it is still early in the life of the new organisation. The Lord Chancellor is accountable to Parliament for the service's activities and performance and I am taking a close interest in its operation.

  Indemnity
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if she will make a statement on the future of the indemnity principle. [53]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Government believe the indemnity principle prevents legal representatives from entering into transparent funding arrangements with their clients. The Government's views have been made known to the Civil Procedure Rule Committee and we are working with them to devise ways in which the Government's policy can be brought into effect.

  Legal Aid Fees
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what recent assessment she has made of the value for money for fees payable in legal aid cases to(a) junior counsel and (b) QCs; and if she will make a statement. [52]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  In determining remuneration the Lord Chancellor is required to consider three statutory factors under section 25(3) of the Access to Justice Act 1999: (a) the need to secure the provision of services of the description to which the order relates by a sufficient number of competent persons and bodies; (b) the cost to public funds; and (c) the need to secure value for money. Recent remuneration measures under that Act have therefore considered value for money.

  In publicly funded family work, the Lord Chancellor introduced the Family Graduated Fees Scheme for junior and Queen's Counsel, on 1 May 2001. The scheme provides for set fees, graduated to take account of complexity and specific issues in the case. In criminal cases, regulations introduced in September 2000 have controlled more tightly the circumstances where QCs or more than one advocate might be allowed for the defence in Crown court cases. Individual case contracts have been introduced in high cost cases. These secure the provision of legal services at a fixed price. New regulations, to be introduced in October, will extend the existing 10-day advocates graduated fees scheme for Crown court trials to cases lasting up to 25 days.

  Conditional Fee Agreements
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what assessment she has made of the approach adopted by insurers to the recoverability of insurance premiums in CFA-funded cases; and if she will make a statement. [54]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  It is open to parties who believe items of cost to be unreasonable to challenge those costs in a court assessment. While it is a matter ultimately for the courts, the Government believe that recoverability includes reasonable premiums reasonably incurred, including premiums on policies taken out before any proceedings start. As long as liability insurers wish to be able to recover their costs in cases that they win, it is not unreasonable for claimants to take out insurance against that risk at the outset and to seek to recover the premium in cases where they are successful.

  Jewish Divorces
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans the Lord Chancellor has to deal with the problem of divorce in the Jewish community, when a husband refuses to grant his wife a get. [50]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Government are sympathetic to the needs of Jewish women who are denied a religious divorce. They have supported two Private Members' Bills on the subject, which unfortunately have not been able to complete their passage through Parliament. Further consideration is being given to the best way forward.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Departmental Expenditure Limits
  Valerie Davey
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what proposals there are to change the 2001–02 departmental expenditure limit or administration costs limit or the Cabinet Office.[1458]

  Mr. Leslie
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimates, the Cabinet Office Resource Departmental Expenditure Limit for 2001–02 will be increased by £17,605,000 from £125,417,000 to £143,022,000. The Capital Departmental Expenditure Limit for 2001–02 will be increased by £37,805,000 from £21,980,000 to £59.785,000. The administration costs limit will be increased by £17,605,000 from £124,345,000 to £141,950,000.

  This is to take account of the following changes:

  (a) to provide additional administration cost resources of £16,726,000 for increased departmental activity planned from April 2001, by taking up Departmental Unallocated Provision.

  (b) to take up Capital Modernisation Fund money of £24,605,000 awarded for the Corporate IT strategy, UK Online (£15,000,000 from round 3 and £9,605,000 from round 2); and £700,000 for developing a sect re Government intranet.

  (c) to take up £12,500,000 for the Cabinet Office new accommodation project from Departmental Unallocated Provision.

  (d) to take up a transfer of £470,000 from the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (formerly the Department for the Environment, Transport and the Regions) and the Security and Intelligence Agencies, for fast stream recruitment activities.

  (e) to take up £409,000 for the Demonstration Project on Retention and Advancement in Employment from the Employment Opportunities Fund.

  The increase will be offset by transfers or charged to the DEL Reserve and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

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

Lord Hannay of Chiswick
Sir David Hugh Alexander Hannay, GCMG, having been created Baron Hannay of Chiswick, of Bedford Park in the London Borough of Ealing, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Bridges and the Lord Williamson of Horton.

Lord Sheldon
The Right Honourable Robert Edward Sheldon, having been created Baron Sheldon, of Ashton-under-Lyne in the County of Greater Manchester, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Barnett and the Lord Dubs.
Several Lords—Took the Oath.

Maritime Theater Missile Defense Forum
2.50 p.m.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so, perhaps I may apologise for an error that has crept into the wording. The reference should be to "theater" missile defence and not to "tactical" missile defence.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have any plans for the Royal Navy to join the Maritime Theater Missile Defense Forum.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Bach): My Lords, although the United Kingdom Government have not previously been formally represented at this forum, we are considering carefully whether to send representation in the future. A decision is expected shortly.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that encouraging Answer. I welcome him to one of the "hot seats" on the Government Front Bench and wish him great success in the future. Does he agree that as the Royal Navy might in the future be engaged in expeditionary force operations, it is important for it to exchange information with the other navies of the world on the future of missile technology?
Lord Bach: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his kind comments. Knowing his vast experience in this field, I am doubly grateful and I thank him. I agree with the thinking behind the Question. It is right that we should seek to monitor
354
developments in the field of maritime theatre ballistic missiles. If we decide in the near future to be represented on this important forum, that will be exactly the intention.
Lord Roper: My Lords, we on these Benches share the pleasure of seeing the Minister in his new role. Irrespective of the diversity of views on strategic ballistic missile defence, will he accept that there is a wide commonality of approach to the question of the missile defence of our ships; and that, therefore, we too welcome the fact that the Government are considering taking part in the forum. Will the Minister further accept that, if we are to acquire this kind of capacity, it makes a great deal more sense and will save resources if it is acquired on a shared basis?
Lord Bach: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his kind comments. He makes exactly the right distinction. We are not talking today, but we may be tomorrow, about what has been described as "national missile defence"—now known as "missile defence". Here we are talking about something quite different and I am grateful for his support in this field.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, on behalf of these Benches, perhaps I, too, may welcome the noble Lord to what was described by the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, as a "hot seat"—and one that has been made temporarily hotter by the mistake in the wording of the Question. As I understand it, this forum contains a number of countries outside NATO of all types. Therefore, is it not particularly important that the United Kingdom should take part in the work of the forum to enable greater co-operation to be achieved between the various nations?
Lord Bach: My Lords, again—I am not tiring of saying this—I am most grateful to the noble Lord. He has been particularly kind to me during the first few weeks that I have been in this job. When the cards in the Conservative Party eventually fall to the ground, so to speak, I hope that the noble Lord will be in the same position as he is now—
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Bach: I am afraid that I cannot help but agree with exactly what the noble Lord said. We are talking about a body that reaches beyond NATO. Therefore, it is most important for us to know what is going on within it.

BBC World Service
2.54 p.m.
Lord Quirkasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether access to the BBC World Service will remain truly global after the changes announced for 30th June.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Amos): My Lords, the BBC World Service is withdrawing short wave broadcasts to North America and Australasia from 1st July. These audiences listen largely on FM and the Internet. The World Service will redirect funding to improve FM and Internet services worldwide, and short wave where there is less privileged access to democratic media, thus improving global coverage. The World Service will monitor developments and report on any loss of listeners in North America and Australasia next year.
Lord Quirk: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Of course, I acknowledge the steps that are being taken to offset the cuts that she mentioned. However, given that the noble Baroness will be fully aware of the value of the World Service not only to its listeners but also to the reputation of the UK, is she also aware that in the eastern states of the US alone there are many, many thousands of devoted BBC fans for whom the Internet is not a viable option and for whom—even if they live in cosmopolitan cities—there is no guarantee that local stations will be willing to carry the World Service of the BBC?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, perhaps I may first assure the noble Lord, Lord Quirk, that we are not talking about cuts. I endorse entirely the view that the noble Lord has expressed about the value of the World Service both to its listeners and in terms of maintaining the reputation of the United Kingdom abroad. However, I must point out to the noble Lord that World Service coverage has increased since last year by 2 million listeners per week. Moreover, in the United States, where there are 2.6 million listeners, only 300,000 of those listeners tune in solely on short wave. This is very much about looking at global coverage and ensuring that we invest in those parts of the world where audiences can listen only on short wave.
Baroness Whitaker: My Lords, my burning concern is to ask my noble friend the Minister whether the World Service is sufficiently funded to enable it to carry out its important task?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I believe that those involved in the World Service would agree that the extra funding of £64 million made available for the three years between 2001 and 2004 has been most welcome. That money will be used to increase investment in new technologies, including new Internet services. It will also be used for the modernisation of short wave transmitters and to expand FM rebroadcasting to the major cities worldwide.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, is the Minister aware that, by concentrating on expanding short wave transmissions in the developing world and on the new technologies of FM and the Internet in the developed countries of America, Australia and New Zealand, the BBC World Service has got its priorities
356
absolutely right? Is the noble Baroness further aware that nowhere does the Government achieve better value for money than in the Foreign Office grant to the World Service?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, it gives me great pleasure heartily to endorse the noble Lord's comments.
Lord Tanlaw: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that there have been cutbacks in this respect? Can she reconcile the following example with her report that the short wave service is being expanded? The Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, which has a very long history in short wave research, has had its grant cut and has made an appeal for those funds to be reinstated. Can the noble Baroness reconcile that cut in provision for the laboratory's research into short wave and atmospheric conditions with the fact that her department intends to promote short wave transmission in those other areas that fall outside the cuts she mentioned?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I repeat, once again, that we are not talking about cuts. The BBC World Service grant in aid has increased by £64 million. We are talking about the BBC World Service making decisions about the nature of its business, and the importance of it being a dynamic organisation that remains flexible and responsive to the changing needs in society. It is about the World Service meeting the needs of a digital age.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, given the acknowledged value of the World Service, will the Minister assure us that there is no threat to, or likely diminution of, the service, in particular to Latin America?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I am not aware of any proposals to diminish transmission to Latin America.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, while recognising that no government have had a completely marvellous record in funding the World Service—and I hear what the Minister says—is this really the right time to cut 1.2 million listeners out of the short wave system? I refer not just to North America but also to Australia, New Zealand, the Pacific and developing countries. I know that the Minister realises that this is now the cutting edge of cultural diplomacy. Does she recall that on the previous occasion the cost cutters and the budget squeezers were let loose on the World Service the government of the day—I believe that this was in the early 1990s—held a rigorous inquiry to find out what the BBC was up to? Will Ministers in the Foreign Office keep a close eye on the matter this time?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, the World Service and FCO Ministers hold an annual meeting. That meeting took place yesterday. It was agreed that as a result of the initiative we are discussing there would be a review to consider the number of listeners in North America and Australasia. I believe that the noble Lord said that

357
1.2 million listeners would no longer receive the service. In Australia the number of short wave listeners has dropped from 1.6 million eight years ago to about 100,000 now. That is the number of people who listen only to short wave. In the United States the figure has dropped to 300,000. Therefore, we are not talking about the kind of numbers that the noble Lord mentioned.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, will the noble Baroness confirm that in countries suffering from extreme poverty and conflict, such as Afghanistan, the World Service is not only maintaining its programme but is supporting it with educational work which has been so valuable to the people there?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I confirm that in addition to its broadcasting activities the World Service also engages in training to enable the media in certain parts of the world to pursue democratic means in those countries.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, in the Minister's initial Answer she partially relied on the fact that the Internet is now being used to deliver the service. Will the Minister put that in context and tell the House how many people, as a percentage of the total listener base of the World Service, now access it through the Internet?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I shall write to the noble Lord on that point. However, in the United States, for example, 168 million people have access to the Internet. The majority of World Service listeners in the United States access it through the Internet. I remind the noble Lord that FM rebroadcasting services are also being actively pursued by the BBC World Service with the aim of ensuring that the world's major cities have coverage through that route.

Nursing Care for the Elderly: Funding
3.4 p.m.
Baroness Walmsley Baroness Walmsley asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have any plans to cash limit in any way the costs of providing nursing care for elderly people as allowed for in the Health and Social Care Act 2001.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): My Lords, we shall shortly be consulting on draft guidance to health authorities on people's need for nursing care. We shall be providing additional funding to health authorities for the provision of free nursing care as part of their overall cash-limited allocation. It will be for health authorities and primary care trusts to
358
determine individuals' nursing needs. Ultimately, it will be for them to decide how best to use their total funding to meet local and national priorities.
Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. However, will he tell the House whether the system for funding nursing care will be based on the real cost or the fantasy figures that date back to 1999 on which the Government costed their policy and which will clearly be insufficient to cover the real cost? In view of that, does the Department of Health have Treasury approval for exceeding the provision made in the Comprehensive Spending Review?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I certainly do not recognise the term "fantasy figures" as regards the Department of Health. On funding, we believe that there is sufficient provision within the general allocation to fund the free nursing care that will be provided as a basis of the assessment procedure which is now to be worked through. We intend to issue draft guidance shortly. That will give a much clearer indication of both the assessment process and indicative figures. We shall await the response with interest and consider the comments.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, is the Minister aware of the report that elderly people in nursing homes will in future have to pay VAT on the cost of that care? Will not that extra cost cancel out what has been allocated for nursing care? Is that not a very unwelcome development?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I understand that a VAT tribunal has ruled that the activities of Kingscrest, which runs residential homes for children and the mentally handicapped, are not exempt from VAT. The ruling could have serious implications. That matter has just come to our attention. I assure noble Lords and my noble friend that we shall work closely with Customs and Excise to assess the consequences of that tribunal decision.
Baroness Greengross: My Lords, does the Minister agree with me that it would not be possible to cash limit nursing care if it was given on the basis of assessed health needs already provided by the NHS free at the point of delivery in other settings? Would not that be a better way to deliver fairer and better care to people, particularly frail elderly people who happen to be in nursing homes rather than in hospital or in their own home?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, as the noble Baroness will know, our decision in relation to free nursing care was designed to end the anomaly that applies at the moment whereby nursing care in nursing homes has to be paid for as opposed to nursing care either within the NHS or in residential homes. I believe that the decision we have taken to make nursing care free, using an assessment on which we are working and on which we shall consult shortly, is the most

359
appropriate way to deal with the matter. We are due to introduce a scheme on 1st October this year that will constitute an appreciable advance on current arrangements.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, the noble Lord will remember that when the relevant legislation proceeded through the House many of us were doubtful about its definition of "nursing care". The Government insisted that the definition was correct. Are they now redefining it through the draft guidance?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, that is absolutely not the case. The definition in the Act refers to services provided by a registered nurse involving either the provision of care, or the planning, supervision or delegation of the provision of care other than services that do not need to be provided by a registered nurse. That definition best represents the extra care received in a nursing home compared with a residential home; in other words, the care that can be provided only by a registered nurse. We stick by that definition.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, further to that, will the Minister confirm that the definition of what nursing care will be needed will be at the discretion of the registered nurse making the assessment? The Minister has stated his confidence that the resource will be available but the essence of the matter is the definition of what nursing care is needed.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, that is why we are working at the moment with organisations such as the Alzheimer's Society, the Royal College of Nursing and other key stakeholders to ensure that we have an appropriate assessment procedure, that there is consistency throughout the country and that the allocation of finance is appropriate and fair to that assessment procedure. The noble Lord will study the draft guidance with interest when it is published. I shall be keen to debate it and to receive comments from noble Lords and other interested parties. We want to make sure that we have a fair and practical system.
Earl Howe: My Lords, the Minister will doubtless recall that during the passage of the legislation concern was expressed by a number of noble Lords reflecting the anxiety of local authorities about the very short time frame available for preparing for the policy's implementation date prior to October 2001. Is the Minister satisfied that the timetable for introducing free nursing care in residential homes is on track?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I understand the point the noble Earl raises. Time is short before 1st October. However, it is important that we get the matter right. It is appropriate for us to take a little more time in issuing draft guidance in order to ensure that the arrangements to be introduced from 1st October are as practically based as possible and consistent and fair. It will require a great deal of effort
360
to ensure that those arrangements are firmly in place by 1st October, but I am confident that we shall make progress towards that.

Belfast Agreement Decommissioning
3.11 p.m.
Baroness Seccombeasked Her Majesty's Government:
What progress is being made towards full implementation of the Belfast agreement, with particular reference to arms decommissioning.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): My Lords, the Government are in regular and close contact with the Irish Government and all of the pro-agreement parties to discuss the full implementation of the Belfast agreement. Progress on decommissioning is central to these discussions.
Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. The election results have shown that confidence in the Belfast agreement among ordinary, decent, moderate unionists is at an all-time low. The reason is the failure of the republicans to honour the commitment on decommissioning that they made over a year ago.
I should like to ask the noble and learned Lord two questions. First, does he agree that full implementation of the agreement must include some decommissioning by 1st July and that unless that happens the peace process will be in ruins? Secondly, what do Her Majesty's Government propose to do to regain the confidence of those moderate unionists and nationalists who want peace above all else?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, in relation to both questions, the Government believe that the most important factor is to make progress on the implementation of the Belfast agreement. The majority of the electorate in the recent general election voted for pro-agreement parties. We believe that the Government have been given a clear mandate to continue to work to try to overcome the obstacles which still exist.
I agree with the implication of the question. It is increasingly apparent that people are becoming frustrated at the lack of progress on decommissioning. We believe that it is now time for the IRA to demonstrate its promised commitment to peace. Of course, decommissioning is essential if we are to make progress on implementing the remaining measures of the agreement. But I believe that one restores the support of moderate opinion by seeing the Belfast agreement being implemented.
Lord Rogan: My Lords, it is somewhat surprising that the Minister's response was so lengthy considering that no real progress has been made on decommissioning. Does the Minister agree with me,

361
and share my regret, that the SDLP, the Irish Government and our Government failed to impress on the paramilitary parties in Northern Ireland the importance of decommissioning, a central tenet of the Belfast agreement? More than three years after the agreement was signed that has not been done.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, it is well known to the noble Lord that the Secretary of State has repeatedly made clear that he regrets the slow progress in relation to decommissioning. However, it is essential that we continue to try to make progress in relation to decommissioning and other aspects of the agreement which have not been implemented. In the recent election, the majority of the electorate voted for pro-agreement parties. Everyone has an obligation to continue to try to make the agreement work.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: My Lords, do the Government accept that, by refusing to make even a start on decommissioning, the Provisional IRA must have intended that moderate and flexible unionism should lose out to intransigent and extreme unionism. It must have so intended because it was bound to happen. Surely it is now right for the Government to recognise by its staunch and sensitive support the extraordinarily courageous and statesmanlike conduct of Mr Trimble?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I entirely endorse what has been said about Mr Trimble. It is incredibly important that the IRA takes steps now towards decommissioning. Furthermore, the Government and pro-agreement parties have not given up on trying to make the Belfast agreement work.
Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, does the Minister accept that many on all sides of the House share the view that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, put to the House: that we should not lose sight of the crucial, central position of Mr David Trimble; and that all of us, whether nationalist or unionist, Catholic or Protestant, owe him a great debt for the personal courage he has shown in trying to press on with the Belfast agreement throughout these arduous months? If he were to be the principal casualty as a result of failure to decommission arms, it would set back the process, perhaps in a fatal way.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, David Trimble has been one of the people who has made the greatest contribution towards making the Good Friday agreement work. But as I have said repeatedly at this Dispatch Box, the Government remain committed to continuing to try to make the Good Friday agreement work. That, we believe, is what the majority of the people in Northern Ireland want.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the terms of reference of the Decommissioning Commission state that decommissioning consists of either turning in arms or
362
seeing them destroyed with witnesses present? However, the Government persist in talking about progress being made. The progress has been two old gentlemen looking down a hole from time to time. That is not progress. Does the Minister agree that it would be a great deal better to be honest? The IRA, to do it justice, has always said that it would never decommission: that it would never give up one ounce of Semtex. Does the noble and learned Lord agree that they might secure greater support from the people of Northern Ireland if the Government were to face that fact and say that that is in effect what has happened? The IRA has secured the release of its prisoners, the virtual destruction of a good police force, has its men in government and a North-South dimension of some importance. Very little else has been gained and paramilitary violence continues against ordinary people in the streets of Northern Ireland. Would it not be better for us to stop pretending that any minute now the IRA might actually do something?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the way to peace was mapped out in the Good Friday agreement. An essential part of that Good Friday agreement was progress on decommissioning. We are not giving up on trying to go down the route prescribed for peace in the Good Friday agreement. I fully accept what is implicit in the noble Baroness's question: that decommissioning is a vital part. But we think that the right course at this stage is to try to continue to get implementation of the Good Friday agreement. We believe that implementation of that agreement is what the people of Northern Ireland want.
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, on 14th and 20th May 1998 the Prime Minister made a series of promises, some of which he put in his own handwriting. The failure of the Prime Minister to deliver on any one of those promises has seriously turned off the unionist electorate. Whatever the Minister says, the electorate of Northern Ireland has moved away from the centre ground. Does the noble and learned Lord accept that Her Majesty's Government have to win back the confidence of the middle ground unionist voter in order to keep faith with the majority of the people in Northern Ireland and have some chance of bringing justice and peace to the majority—we hope to all—of the people in Northern Ireland?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, as I said in answer to an earlier question, I agree that it is increasingly apparent that the people of Northern Ireland are becoming frustrated with the failure of the IRA to demonstrate its commitment to peace. I say this again. Neither we nor the pro-agreement parties are giving up in our attempts to ensure that the Good Friday agreement is implemented. The people of Northern Ireland want proper implementation of the Good Friday agreement.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, are the Government satisfied that sufficient pressure is being brought to bear on the IRA to decommission by the Irish and American Governments?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, all parties involved, including the Irish and United States Governments, are keen to see the Good Friday agreement implemented. That includes decommissioning.
Lord Jopling: My Lords, has the Minister's attention been drawn to the passage in Senator Kennedy's John Smith memorial lecture in London last November in which he said:
"The decommissioning of weapons held by the IRA and by Loyalist paramilitaries is also essential to the success of the Good Friday Agreement, and it must be part of the overall implementation of the Agreement"?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, it has been drawn to my attention. The view that decommissioning is essential is shared by the British Government.

Business of the House: Summer Recess
Lord Carter: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I announce the dates of the Summer Recess. It will also be for the convenience of the Chief Whip. Subject, as always, to the progress of business, the House will sit at 11 a.m. on Tuesday 24th July and rise at the end of business that day. The House will return at 2.30 p.m. on Monday 15th October. I hope that that early announcement of the dates will enable your Lordships to make appropriate plans.

Travel Concessions (Eligibility) Bill [H.L.]
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to amend the law relating to the age at which certain persons become eligible to receive travel concessions on journeys on public passenger transport services; and for connected purposes. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

European Union (Implications of Withdrawal) Bill [H.L.]
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to establish a committee of inquiry into the implications of a withdrawal by the United Kingdom from the European Union. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Lord Pearson of Rannoch.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Address in Reply to Her Majesty's Most Gracious Speech
3.22 p.m.
Debate resumed on the Motion moved on Wednesday last 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 Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Rooker): My Lords, I am conscious, on rising to make my maiden speech in your Lordships' House from the Front Bench, that I am not subject to the normal conventions on interventions. It is not my intention to provoke anybody and I shall deliberately try not to do so.
I thank Members from all quarters of the House for the incredibly warm welcome that I have received in the past few days as I have been walking the corridors of the House. I debated—sometimes quite acrimoniously—with many noble Lords on both sides of the House when we were in the other place. I am also conscious that, after the introduction of the new Members to your Lordships' House earlier this afternoon, I now have behind me the two Ministers and the senior Whip who were on the Finance Bill Committee in 1977 when, along with Audrey Wise, I made a technical adjustment to the Chancellor's Budget. They have promised not to seek to make a Barnett-Sheldon-Stoddart amendment to any Bill that I may take through the House, but if they did I would hardly be in a position to complain.
One other point that I have to get out of the way so that it cannot be used in evidence against me during future proceedings is that I never expected or had any long-term plans to arrive in your Lordships' House. The proof of that is that, in the early months of 1980, I moved a 10-minute rule Bill in the other place to abolish your Lordships' House. I hope that that issue can now be put aside.
I shall try to speak briefly on the health and home affairs issues raised in the gracious Speech. My noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, who is to wind up the debate, will deal with health issues in more detail. The Government have proposed three major health Bills in the gracious Speech. The first is the NHS Reform and Decentralisation Bill. As I have learnt in the past four years as a Minister, we do not write titles for Bills; they are laid down for us. That one is a bit of a mouthful, but the Bill will enable front-line health staff to meet the standards expected of them in a way that is best suited to our communities. It will also radically reorganise the current 95 health authorities. We reckon that it will free up about £100 million by cutting bureaucracy. That money can then be devoted to front-line services.

365
We will also devolve more power and resources to primary care trusts. When the provisions are fully in operation, we expect that two thirds of NHS funding will be in the hands of front-line staff—doctors, nurses and other health professionals. That will be a major change from what has happened in the health services over the past 50 years and will bring great benefit to our fellow citizens, which is the most important point.
The Bill will also touch on the self-regulation of the medical profession, with provisions for the modernisation of the running of the General Medical Council. We shall also try to strengthen the public and patient representation bodies that were initiated in the Health and Social Care Act 2001.
The NHS (Wales) Bill will meet the desire of the National Assembly for Wales and the manifesto commitments that were made. By and large, it will provide a framework for the NHS in Wales in line with the NHS Plan that has already been agreed by the National Assembly for Wales. It will improve collaborative working between local and national partners and provide essential statutory functions in public health.
The third health Bill deals with a sensitive and important issue discussed by Members of this House and of another place over many years—adoption. The Prime Minister personally led a review of adoption policy last year. The Adoption and Children Bill will lay the foundations for a better future, putting the child's interests firmly at the centre of adoption processes, cutting delays and making adoption processes fairer. Many of us have been involved as citizens, neighbours or representatives in this place and elsewhere in various tragic cases of people who have been unable to adopt because of the political correctness laid down by some authorities. The Bill will also strengthen safeguards on inter-country adoption and on the advertising of children for adoption. Children who are looked after by local authorities deserve the same chances as any other child. I hope that the Bill will provide an opportunity for a new start for thousands of our most vulnerable children.
In the past two Sessions of Parliament, the Home Office has been responsible for 17 Acts, much to the chagrin of other Ministers who have not been able to gain a slot for their legislation. That has placed an enormous load on Parliament. We are currently seeking to find out what has happened to the operation of those 17 Acts to ensure that they do what this House and the other place intended. Passing legislation is a fruitless exercise if it is not implemented or tracked or if no one checks whether it performs the function originally intended. We do not do that systematically enough in our parliamentary processes. As a contribution, I am pleased that in this Session the Home Office is offering only four Bills. That is a clear reduction.
We are seeing the fruits of some of our first-term reforms in youth justice and the probation service, as well as higher police numbers. However, crime levels are still far too high, even though, according to the
366
British Crime Survey, crime fell by 10 per cent between 1997 and 1999. Legislation to combat crime is an essential part of the gracious Speech.
The first Bill is the Football (Disorder) (Amendment) Bill. Unusually, I have no interest to declare. I am often asked who I support. The last time I went to a live football match, I took half a day off school, and I left school in 1957.
Last year we introduced tough measures to help to combat football hooliganism. There is no question that this is a very serious issue which affects our national sport; it also affects us in many other ways, including internationally. Prompted by the disorder during Euro 2000, the Football (Disorder) Act 2000 refined and expanded existing anti-hooligan legislation. While the Act made provision for the courts to impose banning orders in circumstances others than on conviction of a football-related offence, it was also needed to demonstrate to governments, police forces and citizens across Europe, beyond the UK, that we were taking the issue seriously. Football hooliganism is not something that we are proud to export. It must stop and we must take all reasonable legislative means to ensure that that happens.
A report on the impact of the 2000 Act has been laid before Parliament. By and large, it confirms that the measures have been successful in reducing disorder and that the powers are being used in a targeted and proportionate way. In order to assist the passage of the Bill—noble Lords will remember this—the life span of the key measures was limited to 12 months, extendable for a further year by an affirmative instrument. Thereafter, the measures will lapse unless the sunset clause is removed by primary legislation. The purpose of the Football (Disorder) (Amendment) Bill is to remove that clause. Of course, we shall bring forward the order in adequate time.
Whatever the nature of crime and disorder, the police are in the front line of the fight against them. Our aim is to work in partnership with the police service and to help it to work as effectively as possible. There is no doubt that part of that project is an ambitious modernisation programme, developed together with the police service. I emphasise partnership and developing the programme together. Our vision for the future of policing is a professional and effective police service which has the confidence of the public. Of course, it will need strong leadership and more effective management, a well-trained and well-equipped workforce, and the most modern technological back-up that we can provide.
Additional, enormous advantages are to be gained in helping the police to do their job by making the best use of modern advances in technology. In this Session we shall bring forward a Police Bill which will build on the progress already made as a result of discussions with the service since the autumn of last year. The Bill will make amendments to legislation which are essential in order to deliver the Government's manifesto commitments on police reform.
Briefly, the aims of the Bill are to strengthen the capacity of the police to reduce crime, and to increase public confidence through a new, independent police

367
complaints system. Over the years, many complaints have been made about the process that has been used for police complaints. Therefore, we hope that we can put the matter to bed with a system which will engender much more public confidence. We also want to engender the more flexible use of manpower, the introduction of specialist expertise and more flexible working patterns. As I said, in addition, we want to make better use of the skills and expertise of civilian staff and other specialists.
However, the police are only one key agency; there are others within the wider criminal justice system. Their effectiveness depends on that of the totality. One area which we believe requires urgent reform is the criminal justice system's poor ability to deprive criminals of their ill-gotten gains. The weaknesses were set out by the Performance and Innovation Unit, which reported to the Prime Minister last year.
Earlier this year, the Government published the Proceeds of Crime Bill in draft form. The consultation period has recently been completed and we shall indicate our response to the comments received when the Bill is introduced. I understand that it is quite a weighty Bill. That is not to say that big problems require big Bills; indeed, the very opposite is sometimes true. A big problem does not necessarily need a big Bill, but this is a weighty tome.
The Bill will establish a criminal assets recovery agency, dedicated to tracking down and depriving criminals of their unlawful earnings. Funds have already been set aside for that purpose. The agency will have a new power to recover criminal proceeds through civil litigation in the High Court or to tax criminal gains, drawing on the powers of the Inland Revenue. Its director will advise the Secretary of State on strategic issues in this field, and the agency will provide training and accreditation to financial investigators.
The Bill will reform and strengthen restraint and confiscation procedures in criminal cases and will extend the powers of the law enforcement authorities to trace and investigate suspected criminal assets. It will also modernise the system of dealing with the prosecution of money laundering. However, because I understand the sensitivities surrounding this issue for anyone who cares about the conduct of public policy, I want to make one thing absolutely clear. The legislation will include the best possible practical safeguards that we can devise in respect of human rights.
In his remarks on the Criminal Justice Bill during his speech in the other place this afternoon, the Home Secretary, David Blunkett, will make the point that we want to arrive at as much of a consensus as possible on this issue across the parties and across the divide. There is no reason why the function of criminal justice should be subject to a party political dogfight. An invitation will be extended to noble Lords in this House to take part in the discussions on the approach that we should adopt in taking through the legislation and on what parts we should include. We want to take through the Bill with as great a consensual approach
368
as possible. I hope that that will be fully understood. The invitation will be made at the appropriate time and I hope that the invitations for discussions with Ministers and officials will be taken up.
In some ways, the Criminal Justice Bill will go much further than the Proceeds of Crime Bill. It will pave the way for fundamental reform of the sentencing framework. We shall consult on fully the sentencing review first, but the Bill will provide a vehicle for early legislation to implement parts of the review. It is possible that not all parts will be implemented at the same time.
It is hoped that the Bill will improve public confidence by tightening up bail procedures and by providing for retrials following acquittals in murder cases where there is compelling new evidence of guilt. That, of course, is an incredibly sensitive issue and concerns a fundamental change in our system of criminal justice. We want to get the matter right, but we shall not get it right if we say, "We are the Government; we know best". We want to adopt a consensual approach to this change. A change in this area is needed in order to take account of modern technology and the processes which are now available. I shall not go into detail about those, but everyone is aware of them.
Protection of the public from sex offenders is also high on the list of priorities. The Bill will improve protection by strengthening the registration requirements in the Sex Offenders Act. It will also reform the law on corruption, bringing it up to date and making clear our compliance with international instruments.
I have tried to set out the various points as briefly as possible in order to give an overview of the central Bills that we shall bring forward in respect of the health and Home Office portfolios. I said that there are only four Bills. Previously, during debates on the gracious Speech, I have listened to Ministers list the forthcoming Bills. Then, half way through the Session, Bills that had never been mentioned have popped up out of the blue, all of which seemed a good idea at the time.
Sometimes we legislate in haste and then repent at our leisure, going through the issues again with an amendment Bill. We shall seek to avoid doing that. We shall seek to think through the legislation before we present it to the House and to be as consensual and open as possible in getting it through.
I hope that noble Lords will consider that I have given an overview of our aims. I understand that, according to the rules under which I am operating, I cannot elaborate further by way of interventions. However, my noble friend Lord Hunt will do that. I commend the gracious Speech to the House.
3.38 p.m.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, my first duty and, indeed, pleasure is to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, on three counts: first, on his appointment to this House. He comes with great experience. Your Lordships will know of his 27 years

369
in another place as Member of Parliament for Birmingham Perry Barr. Following his starring role on the Finance Bill, to which he referred, in the previous Labour government, he has served on the Front Bench of his party—in opposition and in government—continuously, I believe, since 1979—22 years and still counting.
Secondly, it may not be so well known that at the age of 16 he was apprenticed as a toolmaker. It is right to point out that toolmakers are the aristocracy of the engineering shop. He subsequently worked with increasing responsibility in several engineering firms and earned a formidable collection of qualifications, including a BSc and MA; he is also a chartered engineer, a fellow of the Institute of Production Engineers—he was a member of its council for a while—a mechanical engineer and a member of the British Institute of Management. This House values experience and the noble Lord brings plenty of it from inside politics and government and from outside them. I am delighted to congratulate him on his appointment to this House and on his maiden speech. We all look forward to hearing him speak again. We can be certain of hearing from him frequently!
Thirdly, I congratulate the noble Lord on his appointment as Minister of State at the Home Office. It is a busy department, although it is not as busy as it was because it has been shorn of a long list of responsibilities. However, before I discuss that in more detail, I take a moment to thank the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, for his work as a Home Office Minister. As the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, said, the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, worked very hard and was hard pressed by conflicts and—the noble Lord hinted at this—ill-prepared legislation. The legislation was usually drawn up by others and given to the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, to steer through this House. He remained throughout a model of courtesy and always tried to respond to every point with care and in writing if necessary. He remains on the Front Bench as a Whip, so I had better not say any more.
I shall concentrate today on Home Office matters. My noble friend Lord Howe will discuss the health aspects of today's debate when he winds up. As I said, the Home Office is not what it was under the noble Lord, Lord Bassani. Almost every other department in Whitehall has taken a bite out of it. Perhaps the Prime Minister balked at the idea of a full ministry of justice but the decks were cleared for it in any case.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has taken from the Home Office responsibility for human rights, data protection and freedom of information. The Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions has taken from the Home Office the important constitutional responsibility for electoral law and the Electoral Commission; it is also responsible for fire services and Her Majesty's Fire Service Inspectorate but not, I believe, civil emergency planning.
The Department of Trade and Industry has taken from the Home Office responsibility for Sunday trading and for British Summer Time but I notice that
370
it failed to wrest responsibility for bank holidays from the Treasury. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has taken from the Home Office responsibility for animal welfare—including. I presume, crimes of cruelty and control of animal experiments—and for hunting. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport, in its desire to regulate the whole of the nation's free time, took responsibility for film and video censorship, alcohol licensing, gambling of all kinds and horse racing.
In exchange for giving away all that, the Home Office has regained from the Cabinet Office full responsibility for drugs policy and it has also taken over responsibility for work permits. The Cabinet Office is being upgraded in other respects, so moving responsibility for drugs policy co-ordination appears to involve downgrading the emphasis on drugs. That is apparently confirmed by the downgrading of the "drugs tsar". If that is so, it is worrying because drugs and their consequences are a massive and growing engine of all kinds of crime. We shall continue to give priority to fighting illegal drugs and we shall press the Government on that.
Work permits are an interesting case. Some think that more immigrants are needed to fill particular skilled vacancies or simply to provide more manpower. A new "green card" system, like that used in America, is supposed to be needed. The relevant American cards are not green any more, but we know what is meant by the phrase, which refers to an arrangement that is very like our own work permit system. Many work permits are for short-term employment—they involve specialists of various kinds, including actors, musicians and those seeking to improve their employment skills—or for those wanting more usual long-term jobs.
Such decisions have been taken until now by the Department of Employment—to use one of the various names it has had over the years—because it knew where the skills shortages were and where spare manpower was or was likely to be. It used that knowledge to assess employers' applications for work permits for overseas employees. In other words, Whitehall responsibility for work permits reflected the fact that it has been job-market based. In future, it appears that it will be Home Office and "immigration control" based. I find it difficult to see that as either logical or an improvement.
The same goes for a good deal of the reshuffling of responsibilities in Whitehall. Such shuffling of departments' responsibilities involves tremendous upheavals. Ministers' responsibilities can be changed at the stroke of a pen and in this country they take effect at once. However, the staff, buildings and computer programmes take months to reorganise and years to settle down in their new conformation. Establishment officers throughout Whitehall who are involved in pruning this once great department face a massive volume of work. It will take time for the many outside people who have to deal with government to chase their contacts around Whitehall and to find out exactly what has happened. Reorganisations of this kind should be embarked on sparingly and should not

371
be rushed into. In an effort to give an illusion of progress and to feed the idea that government is about Ministers and their titles, huge amounts of work are created. In fact, government is really about enabling civil servants, agencies and clients to deliver. I am always conscious of the fact that accountants, like production engineers, are concerned with making things work.
As the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, said, the gracious Speech promised us a police Bill. He also set out its main themes. Throughout the previous Parliament we were promised more police officers, but the numbers in fact fell, largely because of high wastage, which reflects the low morale about which we all know. We will judge the proposals by their effect on police morale and on officers' self-respect and respect for the job. Without such self-respect, the respect of the public is inevitably threatened, standards fall and a difficult job becomes even more difficult. Incidentally, the Home Secretary's intervention in Sussex is an odd start in that respect.
Effective numbers and morale are also linked to the bureaucratic burdens that are placed on the police, and the Bill is potentially important in that regard. Considerable work has been done on the new complaints system, which has consequences in terms of public respect and the bureaucratic load. The work of our police is examined and second-guessed by a great number of bodies, apart from the complaints body in either its present or its proposed form. Those bodies obviously include the Home Office, and Parliament directly observes the police and the Home Office. The police are also supervised by the police authorities in the various regions, Her Majesty's inspectorate, the National Audit Office and, crucially, the courts and the Crown Prosecution Service, which seeks to follow up the work of the police in the courts. That means that a huge number of institutions are effectively looking over the shoulder of every constable as they deal with incidents in the middle of the night. He may be called on within a few minutes to justify his conduct or his superiors may be faced with this huge barrage of groups.
The gracious Speech also promised us a continuation of the special legislation against football violence. Parliament needs an opportunity to consider the way in which those provisions are working in practice because they were necessarily introduced very quickly. They involve the sort of Bill to which the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, referred when he discussed Bills that were squeezed in with a shoehorn at late date. As he said, we will soon have a preliminary opportunity to consider the provisions through the continuation order. The noble Lord told us about his interest in football, which is roughly parallel with my own. The whole subject was and no doubt remains a personal interest of the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, so availability of advice on this matter is not lacking.
The other three Bills mentioned in the gracious Speech are awaiting reports, "remanded, awaiting reports" might be one description. The criminal justice Bill awaits the publication of Sir John Halliday's review of sentencing. The proceeds of crime Bill awaits
372
the publication of the results of consultation. The draft criminal courts Bill awaits Lord Justice Auld's report. This House has taken a particularly strong view on jury trials which will obviously be an important aspect of that when we come to it. Therefore, the draft legislation can expect particularly careful scrutiny here.
I hope that in each case, publication of the necessary reviews, consultation and so on will be in good time to enable your Lordships and others outside to consider what is said, preferably before the Bills are put before Parliament. Those outside reports and reviews are, after all, supposed to help others, not just the Home Office, to consider the issues and get them right in the Bill concerned.
The proceeds of crime Bill will build on measures introduced originally by the Conservative government. The Minister showed that he is already sensitive to the potential human rights problems of the proposals and to some of the dangers in the detail for legitimate businesses for, of course, those provisions will affect not only criminals. They will indirectly affect criminals, but they will also affect a very large number of legitimate businesses too, with the dangers which that might create. But at the moment, we await the results of the consultations.
Criminal justice Bills are now more as less as regular a feature of parliamentary life as Finance Bills. With violent crime still rising, who can be surprised? This year's criminal justice Bill promises to be another mixed collection of measures, as the Minister set out briefly, including the modification of the double jeopardy rule. Your Lordships will not need me to tell you that the controversial aspect of that is the possible retrospection involved.
The gracious Speech promised nothing about another important remaining responsibility of the Home Office; that is, prisons. But fortunately, my noble friend Lord Hurd of Westwell has given us an opportunity to discuss them fully in a few days' time, so we do not need to refer to them today.
The rights of victims, about which we heard so much during the election, have also been ignored in the gracious Speech, but they will not be ignored by us.
The Minister has been given personal responsibility within the Home Office for asylum, immigration and work permits. No legislation is planned in that field but there is plenty of work to do there. There are a great many unfulfilled promises. The Minister concerned has to deal with one of the heaviest caseloads in government. For that reason, if for no other, the noble Lord will be relieved, I think, that he will only have to respond on behalf of a somewhat truncated Home Office by comparison with his predecessor. But in any event, I congratulate him and wish him well.
3.53 p.m.
Lord McNally: My Lords, vanity causes me to begin with a direct quote from my remarks made in this House on 13th December 2000, at the end of the debate

373
on the last gracious Speech. I was about to be followed by the then Attorney-General, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn. I said:
"So let us all prepare for the feast to come, knowing full well that everyone in the House will enjoy his speech—everyone except the Lord Chancellor and the Leader of the House, neither of whom are sure which of their jobs he wants next".—[Official Report, 13,12/00; col. 472]
Well, they know now. If only that fragile lady had heeded my warnings.
But I have some good news for the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. I understand that the Leader of the House has taken to consulting the noble viscount, Lord Cranborne, about how his kinsman, Lord Salisbury, managed to be Prime Minister from the House of Lords.
My main task, however, is to respond to the gracious Speech in relation to home affairs. Like the noble Lord, Lord Cope, I associate myself with the tributes to the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, who, although now in pastures new, exhibited enormous fortitude, I should tell the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, as he dealt with the heaviest workload of any Minister in the House of Lords in the last Session.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Cope, I welcome the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, and congratulate him on it. I know from my own experience that he comes from another place with a well established record both as a Member of Parliament and as a Minister. Even with that experience, the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, will need a little help from his friends. For a start, I know that the layout of this place is rather confusing so I should explain that there is the Official Opposition, this is the real Opposition and occasionally, from time to time, up there is the noble Lord, Lord Hattersley. I hope that the Opposition Front Benches will not be too hard on the noble Lord. Lord Hattersley. Although the Minister is not a footballer, the noble Lord, Lord Hattersley, is a keen football fan and as a supporter of Sheffield Wednesday, he has not yet become used to supporting a winning team.
The Home Office has changed a lot since the general election. In fact, I believe that only the noble Lord, Lord Warner, has survived as a kind of influential spider in the middle of the Home Office web. All the other Ministers are new. I can understand the desire to clear decks to allow the department to concentrate on the core issues of crime and punishment.
I put it on record that I am worried that betting and gaming have moved from the Home Office to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. There were very good reasons for betting and gaming being kept within the Home Office and in recent years, those reasons—in particular, defence against organised crime—have grown stronger rather than weaker.
Be that as it may, the Home Office refocusing under a new Ministerial team offers the opportunity to take stock. I hope that reports that David Blunkett intends to play the tough guy even more than his predecessor are not true. I have made my criticism of Jack Straw before. He saw as the first priority of his stewardship
374
never to be outflanked by either Michael Howard or Ann Widdecombe. It gives me no pleasure to say that he succeeded in that aim and, as a result, never escaped from the criticism made of him by Phillip Stephens of the Financial Times that he,
"spoke to the populist illiberalism which is the Government's least attractive trait".
If what the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, said today about a new, more consensual approach is to be demonstrated, then on these Benches, we both welcome it and will respond to it.
The question that David Blunkett should be asking himself is whether populist illiberalism produces the solutions to the problems facing a Home Secretary. It is the contention of these Benches that it does not. Gesture politics and, even worse, gesture legislation has been the abiding failure of successive Home Secretaries, Tory and Labour, over recent years.
Let us take prison policy, for example. I was struck by a quotation from Lady Ramsbotham, the wife of the retiring Inspector of Prisons. She said:
"If imprisoning people was so successful we woulc be needing fewer prisons—not more of them".
Yet for over a decade, successive Home Secretaries have proved their macho credentials by the commitment to build more prisons and to put more people in them. The result is that we now have more people in prison than almost any country in the western world. Yet, what do we say when we are faced, as we were faced last week, with the dilemma of two 18 year-olds who had committed a terrible crime? The Lord Chief Justice, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, when explaining his recommendation that the killers of Jamie Bulger should serve a minimum of eight years said that the alternative—that they should be transferred to one of Britain's young offender institutions—would be,
"likely to undo much of the striking progress",
they had made inside the local authority secure units because the atmosphere in those institutions was so corrosive.
But if young offender institutions were likely to undo eight years of remedial work on Jamie Bulger's killers, what kind of damage are they doing to the young people that we send there? Instead of every Home Office Minister trotting out statistics about new prisons and increased prison numbers, would it not be better to bring forward a real strategy for prison reform and a greater emphasis on successful alternatives to prison?
I do not deny that a real fear exists in the mind of the public in relation to the issues of law and order. However, in responding to crime, it is important to keep a cool head. Knee-jerk reactions are not a sound basis for a system of justice or of punishment. With that in mind, this House has a particular duty to examine measures in the gracious Speech in terms of civil liberties and basic freedoms. I welcome the spirit and the content of the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, in that context.

375
The quick fix rarely proves the right solution in such matters and we must eschew the idea that when one draconian set of measures has failed our only response is another turn of the ratchet towards even tougher measures. In recent years successive Home Secretaries have implied that any questioning of their particular solutions means a kind of namby-pamby liberalism that leaves the criminal unpunished and the victims of crime unprotected. Nothing could be further from the truth.
As an example I turn to the issue of drugs, to which the noble Lord, Lord Cope, referred. Over seven years ago, in 1994, the Liberal Democrats called for a Royal Commission on drugs. We were well and truly dumped on by Labour and Conservative spokesmen and lampooned by the popular press as potheads and crackpots. Yet the very first observation of the ground-breaking report of the committee chaired by Lady Runciman on drugs policy, commissioned by the Police Foundation, stated:
"we have been forcibly struck by the lack of research and the weakness of information base about drugs use in the United Kingdom".
This is an opportunity for Mr Blunkett to show that Home Secretaries do more than just grab tomorrow's headlines. Belatedly—so late that even the candidates for the Conservative Party leadership are clambering aboard—there is a call, across parties, for a well informed, well researched debate about drug policy. That is gathering momentum and the Home Secretary should seize the moment to initiate one.
Meanwhile, let us take some real and practical measures against the drug menace. In that respect I welcome the promise in the gracious Speech of urgent action against money laundering. It is clear that action against street-corner pushers has only marginal effect. We must go after organised crime at its roots with measures to track down and to confiscate the proceeds of crime. I welcome the declaration by David Blunkett that one of his primary objectives is a war on traffickers in drugs, people and terrorism. The recent report of the House of Commons Select Committee on International Development called for the establishment of a single government department to provide a focus for current activity, and pointed out that the,
"lack of focus and co-ordination is hampering efforts to tackle corruption and money laundering in the UK".
If the Bill that we are promised addresses that problem, we will welcome it and give it our support.
An added incentive for a country like Britain to take action against money laundering is what I call the BBC World Service factor. Today at Question Time we heard that all over the world people tune in to the BBC World Service in preference to domestic or other international news providers for one simple reason: they believe the BBC.
A parallel can be found in the City of London, which still has a reputation for business probity. I believe that such a reputation is an asset in a global economy, particularly in the area of financial services. But it is an
376
asset that must be protected by tight laws, eternal vigilance and a determination to bring wrong-doers to justice.
I worry whether the National Criminal Intelligence Service is being given the priority or the resources to make a reality of Government intent. The number of prosecutions for money laundering offences is still minute and the co-operation of all but a few major banks and virtually none of the big law firms and accountancy firms undermines the thrust of declared policy.
As the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, indicated, the gracious Speech contains four Bills that are directly within the ambit of the Home Office and I believe that in the past week a fifth has been added—the civil defence funding Bill.
There are also a couple of constitutional Bills, the fox hunting Bill, which has some relevance to this debate, and, of course, the "Harold Macmillans events", the entirely unexpected, which will occupy us during the coming year. I do not intend to give a detailed comment on each of those Bills today, especially as my colleagues, the noble Lords, Lord Dholakia and Lord Phillips, intend to cover certain aspects in more detail in the light of their own vast experience.
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, and through him the Home Secretary, takes on board the message from these Benches: basically it is time for a change of emphasis from the Prime Minister's old mantra of "tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime" towards "effective on crime, effective on the causes of crime".
The Home Office is a great Office of State which in the past has championed civil liberties and human rights, as it must do We cannot provide more law and order by undermining the protection for the citizens that over the centuries has been built into our criminal justice system.
We cannot achieve support for the police unless we recognise and remedy the faults and weaknesses that exist. A programme of police reform that brings our police forces closer and makes them more accountable to the communities that they seek to serve will have enthusiastic support on these Benches.
Likewise, the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, has special responsibility for asylum policy, so he will have our support when he seeks to implement a policy that honours our age-old tradition of tolerance and refuge for those in need of shelter from persecution. He will receive support from these Benches if he seeks an asylum policy that fairly shares the burden of reception and absorption in full consultation with local communities and seeks genuine international cooperation in dealing with the matter. However, it will not be acceptable to use bureaucratic delay and inhumanity of treatment as hidden deterrents to those who seek asylum here.
On race relations I shall make only two points. My noble friend Lord Dholakia will have more to say on the subject. First, there is a need to look at the special circumstances that have arisen in some of our old

377
textile centres where the industry that brought communities to this country in the first place have all but disappeared, but they have left behind real social problems. Secondly, all the mainstream democratic parties in this country need to stand shoulder to shoulder against the threat to all our values posed by the British National Party.
We start a heavy work programme with some big issues. I repeat that I welcome both the offer and the tone of the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, to which I believe we can respond. On these Benches he will find informed criticism and principled opposition when the Government get things wrong, particularly on matters of individual liberty, and civil and human rights. However, he will also find unflinching support when the Government take the road of radical reform. That is how it was in the previous Parliament and so it will be in this.
4.8 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Durham: My Lords, first I must crave the indulgence of the House in case this debate should continue late into the evening. Early tomorrow morning I have to lead into retreat those whom I shall ordain on Sunday morning. My only opportunity to keep that appointment with them is to catch the last train to Durham tonight. I apologise for any discourtesy to the House.
I join other noble Lords in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, on his clarity, humour and experience. No doubt all that will stand the Government and this House in good stead in the future. I hope that he will soon be converted to the wisdom that flows from all the Benches in this House.
I welcome the Government's intention to address a wide range of issues relating to the prevention of crime. I welcome the opportunity to make our response to it in terms of police investigations, the court system and the responsibility that we have to the victims and to the perpetrators of crime. Our inability as a society to stem the rise particularly in violent crime should not be blamed only on our police forces. It is a reflection of the instability in society, caused by the erosion of family life and the lack of moral framework that we offer to younger generations.
Crimes which spring from common human frailties such as greed or jealousy are bad enough. But when racial or religious motives are responsible for crime, we have used the positive delights of human variety, dignity and sanctity and turned them into excuses and weapons for violence and destruction.
It is this evolving and unpredictable nature of society which makes it important that legislation is always appropriate to meet the demands of the age in which we live. But in framing new legislation, I hope that the Government will have in mind that in the end we cannot legislate to eradicate the causes of crime nor provide a cure for it. The origins of and responses to crime will be addressed by much broader government policies which deal with the encouragement of marriage and family life, with education and with the eradication of unemployment and urban and rural poverty.
378
No reforms to our judicial systems, no scientific methods of detection, no increase in the numbers and efficiency of our police forces, desirable and necessary as all these things may be, will address the root causes of crime.
When we come to address the details of the new legislation, we must keep those reflections before us. A show of strength and political determination may be welcome, but we must remain aware of the limitations of legislation in itself to provide all the answers to our deep concerns. We should keep in mind four purposes of the criminal justice system: to punish the criminal; to serve those who are the victims of crime; to protect the public; and to restore to their full humanity those who fail.
The system must seek to do all that with clarity, openness and fairness. For example, the double jeopardy protection should not be thrown out thoughtlessly or in a populist knee-jerk reaction to particular notorious crimes. It is important that in the vast majority of cases those acquitted of accusation should be able to put aside that experience for ever; and it is important that we do not provide excuses for criminal investigations to be less thorough because there is the possibility of returning the case to court.
Nevertheless, with the advancement of technology, it is quite possible that new evidence could come to light which suggests that the case could be returned to court. There may be instances where the accused is freed on a technical matter which means that the issue is not fully or satisfactorily resolved.
That suggests that in the most serious or repeated crimes, the abolition or protection of double jeopardy may serve the cause of justice, but we must safeguard the legislation from opening this gate too widely. When we know the details of the review carried out by Lord Justice Auld, I hope that we shall be able to address some current failures of the police and courts system.
One example which was brought to my attention involved the case of a minor fraud which took three years to come to court after arrest. During that time, the defendant lost his job and a number of personal and essential items were not returned to him. He also underwent a nominal sentence of a few weeks, an experience which was totally negative for him. It was his first and I trust only offence, but his whole life was put on hold for an unconscionably long time.
Thankfully, that man had the support of the Church during his long wait, his trauma of court proceedings, his short but devastating prison sentence and his rehabilitation into the community. It is worth noting that the Church's Criminal Justice Forum has launched a resettlement programme under the direction of two Salvation Army officers. It is called "Community Chaplaincy", whereby chaplains work as much with the prisoners after release as when they are in prison. Pilot sites for this programme are now in operation in Swansea, Preston and Gloucester.
I know that any proposals to make it easier for police forces to collaborate and for a revised police complaints system will be welcomed by the police

379
themselves. The complaints system has moved from one of internal accountability to that of accountability to the public beyond the complainant. It must surely be right that we search for more transparency and openness in this sphere.
Finally, I turn to an issue which is a good example of the needs expressed in my opening remarks. The Queen's Speech indicated that legislation will be introduced to extend the life of the Football (Disorder) Act. Sadly, we must now assume that this should be further extended to include cricket and perhaps other sports as well.
For those of us who love our cricket, it seems unbelievable that what is clearly necessary at Highbury is also relevant to Lord's. But the recent happenings at cricket grounds point to something more sinister than high spirits. Let us hope that it involves only a small minority. However, the indicators are that those disturbances are another expression of the racial and perhaps religious motivations of some who have ambitions further to destabilise our society.
By all means, let us give the police and the courts the power adequately to control such behaviour. But we must also take note that the causes and cures of these disturbances reach deeper into our society than can be handled by legislation alone.
I look forward to hearing from the Government that the fight against crime, as well as being tackled by improvements in our police and judicial systems, needs to be engaged on a broad front and among the people who at local level are teaching, counselling and praying that our communities may be safer places in which to live.
4.18 p.m.
Lord Williamson of Horton: My Lords, it is clear that the gracious Speech closely reflects the priorities which dominated the election campaign and which represent the key elements of the mandate of the Government for this term. In particular, two of the most important priorities are the subject of our debate today; namely, health, with the objective of the reform of the health services, and justice and home affairs, with the objective of improvements in policing, in the criminal court system, in the recovery of criminal assets and in sentencing.
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, who I am very pleased to see back in his accustomed place on the Front Bench, knows that from time to time I intervene on some health matters, in particular those concerning mental health as I am a patron of the National Schizophrenia Fellowship. This is the first time I have intervened in your Lordships' House on issues of justice and home affairs. But what can an ambitious Cross-Bencher do? As the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House told us last Wednesday:
"It is now a settled constitutional convention that the Home Office always has a plethora of Bills and nothing has changed".—[Official Report, 20/6/01; col. 23.]
380
The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, tells us that it only a little plethora but, all the same, there is a great deal of business and the Government clearly want us to work in this field—and rightly so.
First, there will be widespread support, which I strongly share, for the measures to help the police fight crime and co-operate across boundaries. Sometimes there are moments in a person's life when he wonders what the Government are for. Certainly, that happened to me from time to time when I was a public servant. But surely in this area there is no doubt that government and Parliament must support the police and seek to make them as effective as possible, not only in the detection and arrest of criminals but also in the wider role to prevent crime by their presence in sufficient numbers and the advice that they give to householders and others who are potentially affected by crime.
Most of the measures taken in the community to prevent crime, to make it harder to commit it and to influence the actions and opinions of actual and potential offenders are not so eye-catching as a high-speed police chase, but public resources devoted to preventing crime are generally well spent, and I am sure that the public are well aware of that. I hope that such measures will continue to have priority, whether they are conducted by the police themselves or other organisations. I commend the project of the Howard League, of which I am an ordinary member, called Citizenship and Crime which challenges 7,000 children and young people in 60 schools so far to understand their responsibilities and reject harmful behaviour.
Secondly, there will be widespread support for the Bill to establish a criminal assets recovery agency and to make it easier to recover the proceeds of drugs and crime. I understand that the Bill will change the burden of proof in determining whether assets are the proceeds of drugs and crime so that it is easier to arrive at a satisfactory result. Action in this area certainly responds to public dissatisfaction with cases where criminals have apparently been able to continue a high life style while their victims suffer.
The third main element in the plethora of new legislation on justice and home affairs is the potential reform of the criminal courts system which follows the recommendations of the committee chaired by Lord Justice Auld, which are eagerly awaited on these Benches, and other moves to reform sentencing. The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, referred to a fundamental reform of sentencing, including, according to the press briefing, new style intermediate courts where a judge will sit with magistrates, and a review of sentencing policy with longer prison terms for some offenders.
While supporting much of the Government's proposals, it is on the last point that I express some doubt. It is evident that for some offences, in particular those involving violence, substantial prison terms are necessary for the protection of the public. Subject to that, the situation in our prison population gives rise to serious misgivings. That is indicated by the fact that shortly we shall have a further debate on this matter in the House initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Hurd of

381
Westwell. We must make a serious long-term effort to ensure that the expensive resource of prison becomes less and less a routine response to lesser crime but should be used in exceptional circumstances for those people who are a significant danger to the public.
That is not fully the situation today. We have a very high prison population in comparison with some other states in Europe. More than 200,000 men, women and children experienced prison here in 1999. That was not the prison population but the number of people who passed through prison. Eighty per cent of those who go to prison are sentenced for non-violent offences, and two-thirds of prisoners are sentenced to six months or less. I look forward to the possibility that in relation to the latter point the proposed new system of custody plus, which may come forward in this legislation, will be an improvement.
The present system is very expensive. It costs about £26,000 a year to keep someone in prison. It is also costly because about half of those who experience prison will be reconvicted of another offence within two years of release. In addition, of the very many people in prison on remand half will not be sentenced to imprisonment when their cases finally come to court.
Some of the increase in the prison population in the 1990s is easily understandable; for example, there was a very big increase in the number of those convicted of drug offences. But the growth in the number of prisoners has arisen mainly from longer sentencing, not more crime. For that reason, whatever we debate on these Bills in relation to sentencing is very important.
I believe that the Minister should be concerned about two points. First, at the end of the period covered by the digest published by the Home Office in October 1999 almost twice as many people were in prison for burglary, theft, handling and robbery as for violence against the person. Secondly, the proportionate use of immediate custody for indictable offences, which fell in the 1980s, rose, I believe, for seven years in the 1990s, and by 1997, 72 per cent of those convicted for robbery, for example, were sentenced to immediate custody. In the Crown Court custody was used in 43 per cent of cases in 1990 and 61 per cent in 1997. It may be that more recent events show some reversal of that trend and, if so, I welcome it.
The difficulties are extremely well understood, but it is perhaps wise to use an unhappy expression, which no doubt will appear in the Oxford English Dictionary shortly; in relation to some of our practices on sentencing and the prison population we are in a "SPAD" (signal passed at danger) situation. We need to think carefully how, while fully protecting the public and giving attention to the needs of victims of crime, we can develop for more offenders penalties which do not involve imprisonment.
It is true that in a recent year about 28 or 29 per cent of those sentenced for indictable offences were given a community sentence, but I am convinced that community penalties will be used to greater effect
382
some years ahead. Evidence shows that they are just as effective as prison in stopping crime, and they are substantially cheaper for the taxpayer. Very good work has been done for young people through such measures as reparation orders, referral orders, the probation service and drug treatment and testing orders. There must be greater possibilities, surely, for community sentences for adult offenders. I know that that is easier said than done, but we need to have a realistic objective before us in which imprisonment really becomes the last resort and, in particular, the number of women and children in our prisons decline while community sentences play a bigger role.
Finally, our prisons also hold prisoners with a good number of specific mental health problems. I realise that the Government have decided to defer the major mental health Bill until a later Session and so it is not before us today. I believe that in recent times the Government have done very well in this field with the national service framework and the additional commitments to mental health. But I should like to be assured by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, that when the major necessary reforms in the health services which are announced in the gracious Speech take place they will not unwittingly prejudice the £700 million that has been committed to mental health over three years for the national service framework and the £300 million a year by 2003–04 under the NHS Plan. We want full implementation of the funding plans set out in the previous Parliament.
In conclusion, the Government did a good deal in their previous term. In many ways I am very satisfied with their actions on law and order and improving the priorities, effectiveness and funding of mental health. But it is a legitimate concern for a reforming government that the prison overload should be steadily reduced by greater use of community sentences and that the efforts decided on to improve mental healthcare are followed through.
4.29 p.m.
Lord Rea: My Lords, I shall use my slot in this debate to discuss two of the most powerfully addictive drugs. Noble Lords will appreciate that in this I refer to important topics which have been omitted from the gracious Speech as well as those which form part of it. Noble Lords may have guessed that I am referring to the Government's failure to reinstate the Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Bill which in the previous Parliament passed through all its stages in the other place and its Second Reading in your Lordships' House.
Your Lordships will be aware that nicotine is now known to be as highly addictive as heroin, if not more so. The means by which it is imbibed—that is to say, through smoking tobacco in the form of cigarettes—is far more lethal in the long term than heroin. I shall say a few words about heroin addiction later because it has recently been in the news and because the Government will be seeking greater powers to curb drug trafficking in this Session through the legislation outlined by my noble friend in his light-hearted but extremely businesslike maiden speech.

383
I imagine that my noble friend Lord Hunt who is to answer the debate is as concerned as all of us in the health professions about the decision to delay the Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Bill. However, being a loyal as well as a highly effective member of the Government's health team, I imagine that my noble friend will not be voicing this disappointment in his speech today.
My noble friend will be aware of the strong and universal criticism of that decision by leading figures in medicine and cancer research. I will quote only from a few; there are more, all equally cogent. First, I repeat the view of Sir George Alberti, president of the Royal College of Physicians. He said:
"This is a bitter blow for all UK doctors. The children we fail to protect from tobacco advertising today will be our patients with cancer and heart disease tomorrow. We're astonished that the government should fail to implement legislation which will help them meet their own targets for reducing smoking-related disease".
Secondly, I quote from Sir Alexander Macara, the chairman of the National Heart Forum. Here I declare an interest because I am secretary of that forum. Many noble Lords will know that he was the previous chairman of the BMA Council and a member of the General Medical Council and the working party on the task force looking at the implementation of the National Service Framework for Cardiovascular Disease. He stated:
"This legislation simply cannot wait. By the government's own calculations, this scandalous delay will cost at least 4,500 unnecessary deaths from smoking as well as burdening the health services with treating avoidable coronary heart disease, cancer and respiratory illness.
"It is just six months since ministers were stressing that smoking is the biggest public health problem facing the country and that a law to ban tobacco advertising was essential. Failure to act [on the bill] brings into question the government's commitment to the public health agenda and a proper priority for prevention".
Thirdly, Dr Ian Bogle, the current chairman of the BMA Council, said:
"I am shocked and dismayed that the Government has not made room in its programme for a bill to ban tobacco advertising".
Obviously I could go on. I understand why the Government may want to take issue with the profession on matters of remuneration and terms and conditions of service, but here the Government are defying the strongly expressed professional advice of some of the most respected physicians and scientists in the land.
The Government are also eating their own words. Again I will give only a few quotations from the mouths of Ministers. First, I quote from Alan Milburn, the Secretary of State for Health, in his Second Reading Speech in another place. He said that,
"we honour the commitments that we have made. The Bill will ban tobacco advertising and sponsorship in this country. It will do so to protect public health, to safeguard children and to reduce health inequalities".—[Official Report, Commons, 22/1/01; col. 654.]
The Minister for Public Health, Yvette Cooper, in a press release on 11th May, said:
384
"The majority of the British people, doctors and health professionals all want to see this ban in place. It is the Tories and the tobacco industry who have done everything they can to block this".
I quote my noble friend's words on 28th March. He said that,
"the provisions of the Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Bill, if enacted, could lead to a 2.5 per cent reduction in smoking prevalence and in the longer term a similar fall in tobacco-related deaths, a saving of some 3,000 lives a year".—[Official Report, 28/03/01, col. 273.]
On the first day of the debate on the humble Address in your Lordships' House my noble and learned friend Lord Williams of Mostyn said:
"We shall reintroduce the extremely important Bills on commonhold and leasehold and international development which failed through lack of time".—[Official Report, 20/6/01; cols. 23–24.]
There was no mention of the Tobacco Advertising and Promotions Bill which surely also qualifies as "extremely important" since it is literally a measure to save lives, as my noble friend Lord Hunt said on 28th March. I very much hope that the noble Lord can announce when he winds up that the Government have listened to the concerns that have been expressed, some of which I have quoted, and will now include the Bill in this Session of Parliament. That would not only be of great public health benefit, but it would also be a popular decision which would increase the Government's standing. It would bury the suspicion that the Government are succumbing to the pressure of the tobacco industry. Incidentally, that pressure was very well expressed by certain members of your Lordships' House, as my noble friend well knows, at Second Reading on 28th March.
The Government do not need another Formula One or Ecclestone embarrassment. I am sure that the right honourable Kenneth Clarke is chuckling in his "BATmobile" about this matter as he zooms around the world selling cigarettes to developing countries.
In another place my right honourable friend Robin Cook, who will be leading the House, I am sure, on ethical principles, said that proposed future Bills which were not included in this Session were not to be considered as being of lower priority. All I can say to that is, "You could have fooled me".
I now turn to say a few words about other drugs of addiction, particularly heroin. There is much discussion about the possible role of soft drugs such as cannabis acting as the "gateway" to hard drugs such as heroin. However, there is a much higher prevalence of cigarette smoking among both cannabis and heroin users—about 90 per cent—than in the general population—about 30 per cent. It has recently been suggested by researchers in the USA that the effect of nicotine on dopamine metabolism may predispose tobacco smokers to experience enhanced pleasure from narcotic drugs and thus predispose them to becoming drug dependent. Therefore, if cannabis is a gateway drug—that is not proven—it may well be because it is commonly inhaled together with tobacco. So not only would a ban on tobacco advertising save

385
3,000 lives a year, it may also slow down the increase in use and abuse of heroin and other drugs that we are seeing.
Yesterday, I attended part of an international conference sponsored by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office entitled the Global Economy of Illegal Drugs. There is much international cooperation and huge expenditure on attempts to curb drug trafficking. Plans for its improved effectiveness were discussed. It included what was virtually a Second Reading speech by Robert Ainsworth, the new Home Office Minister who is now handling drug issues. He described the new measures to tackle money laundering and recovery of criminal assets, a matter about which my noble friend Lord Rooker also spoke.
But we all know that however successful the legislation is, more drugs will get through than are intercepted. If one drug cartel is exposed and eliminated, another will replace it. As long as the market exists for illegal drugs the international criminal fraternity will find ways of supplying it. Globalisation ensures that more and more goods and people move around the world. It is not economically or technically feasible to strip search everyone or minutely examine every consignment of traded goods.
It is surely clear that a renewed emphasis on "demand reduction" is the only answer. That involves a combination of approaches: first, helping people to come off drugs. That is an almost impossible task, even in prison, if they do not want to come off them. The noble Lord, Lord Williamson, spoke about the drug testing and treatment orders (DTTOs). Now if one is convicted of a crime and is suspected of having been a drug user, one can at least be offered testing and treatment.
However, independent researchers have shown, contrary to the belief of the previous Home Office Minister, Paul Boateng, that DTTOs are not quite as effective as he would like to make us believe, particularly among those who are being pressurised into having the treatment. One cannot expect an addict to come off drugs unless he really wants to come off. But many do want to come off and they cannot get the help that they need. The Runciman report, to which the noble Lord, Lord McNally, referred, emphasised that only 13 per cent of government expenditure on drug abuse supported treatment or rehabilitation but 62 per cent went on enforcement. Much more emphasis needs to be put on treatment and rehabilitation, as many of us pointed out in the debate on 21st February.
I shall skip over the role of education, except to say that there are many problems. The most common introduction to hard drug use is through the activities of small-time suppliers who are themselves addicts and who buy the drug, cut it—that is, adulterate it and dilute it—and sell it on to finance their own habit. They form the basis of the pyramid selling phenomenon. The best way to prevent this happening is to supply the hard core of addicted heroin users with a pure, clean form of the drug that they need through controlled outlets, as used to be the case before the
386
present Misuse of Drugs Act came into force 27 years ago. It would be possible to make them pay for their supplies, but the price must be set at a level to undercut the black market or street price of the impure illegal product now available. Unfortunately, there are now several hundred thousand hard core users who would need supplies, whereas in the early 1970s there were only a few thousand. That is an interesting comment on the effectiveness of our current legislation.
At the end of a Channel 4 series last week, 65 per cent of a studio audience, chosen to be as representative as possible of the population, voted in favour of the proposition that "The drugs laws do not work". One of the clearest messages from that debate was that treatment and rehabilitation facilities are nowhere near sufficient to cope with the demand.
I should like to end by referring to a debate on drug abuse in your Lordships' House in December 1997. Winding up, my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer referred to my speech, which covered some of the same themes as my speech today. He said:
"His view that to decriminalise drugs, or provide a legal supply through licensed outlets, will get rid of the black market in drugs is, with the greatest respect to him"—
one always knows what that means: it means probably "with the greatest disrespect"
"misconceived and misguided".—[Official Report, 9/12/97; col. 139.]
After the debate I suggested to my noble and learned friend that my approach would in time come to be accepted by government. After three-and-a-half years that stage has not been reached, but public willingness to look at this approach, which after all was the official policy until the late 1960s, is increasing year by year. I hope that my noble friend Lord Rooker will persuade his colleagues in the Home Office to take a more open-minded view in the current discussion of drugs and the law. I suggest as a start that they look at the evidence of careful studies in Holland and Switzerland which show that the approach that I have outlined actually works, by helping heroin addicts to regain physical, mental and social health, employability, and in reducing crime.
4.44 p.m.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: My Lords, I add my congratulations to those given by other noble Lords to the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, on his excellent maiden speech and on his appointment as Minister of State at the Home Office. I held that post myself for a year. Michael Howard was the Secretary of State and Ann Widdecombe was the Parliamentary Under-Secretary. During the course of that year I found that my views became progressively more liberal. I am much closer to the position outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, in his speech than I was when I started. I do not propose to speak today about home affairs, but it strikes me that addressing that question of how we use prison more effectively for rehabilitation and make better use of resources is one of the big problems that remain unsolved.

387
I was sympathetic to some of the arguments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Rea. I found myself thinking that perhaps there is indeed a case, as the noble Lord, Lord McNally, reminded us, for a Royal Commission to look at the whole drugs issue. It is a complex issue and one that people find difficult to address for all kinds of political reasons. However, the noble Lord, Lord McNally, likes to present himself and his fellow Liberal Democrats, at least in this House, as the Official Opposition. Where I live, north of the Border, they are in bed with the Government and are part of the Government. It reminds me of the days when I was canvassing: Liberal Democrat policies would vary from street to street. Now, whether they are in opposition or part of the Government varies from one part of the United Kingdom to another. It must be very convenient to be a Liberal Democrat, with such flexibility of mind.
I dare say noble Lords would expect me to begin my speech by criticising the Government for the gracious Speech. We have yet again a series of health Bills that are concerned with reorganisations. The very last thing that doctors, nurses and managers need is yet another set of reorganisations. If there is one criticism I would make of our time in power—I was concerned with health for six years—it is that, largely driven by the Treasury, we were obsessed with the idea that every year we could achieve further efficiency savings and that every year there was, through reorganisation or competitive tendering, something that could produce additional resources that did not demand us to look at the problem of resources in healthcare directly.
If I were being fair to the Government, having criticised them, I would also congratulate them. There is no doubt that over the past 10 years the leadership of the Labour Party has moved forward by a century. It recognises that the market is better than politicians at delivering all kinds of services that were once seen as, unavoidably, state monopolies. It sees that market provision often has defects but accepts that a regulated market does a better job than its own nationalised industries ever did. Yet it cannot bring itself to admit that in the case of health. The Labour Party is completely hung up on the fact that it invented the NHS. Having ceded so much to the market, whether in gas, water, electricity, airports or buses—you name it—its left wing has dug in deep to keep our healthcare system nationalised. So the arch-reformer, the Prime Minister himself, found himself appointing, right at the start of an administration with a huge majority, which regrettably he still has, the left-winger Frank Dobson as Secretary of State for Health simply to appease his old Labour colleagues. It did. But it landed the Government in the floundering mess they are in today on the NHS. A health service run of Dobsonian principles could not work; and it did not.
In business, when you do something that does not work, you pull out the other drawer and implement Plan B. The Government are in such a cul-de-sac on health policy because they did not have a Plan B. When their policy fell to bits, they had nothing other than the old Labour language to hang on to. All they could do
388
was promise more money. Indeed, they have promised a great deal more money. But it is money which the ageing population and medical inflation will soon swallow up. They just could not bring themselves to admit in healthcare what they had admitted everywhere else in the economy—that a nationalised healthcare system inevitably has just the same problems as a nationalised telephone company, a nationalised bus company or a nationalised airline.
To be fair, the Tories—the Conservatives—have also been avoiding this issue for many years. I was fascinated by the criticisms which were made of Mr Hague by some, saying that he did not spend enough time talking about health during the general election campaign. Those criticisms were fascinating because I know that they were made by people who had no enthusiasm for raising the issue of healthcare during the election. They see that the public rather like the idea of a health service free at the point of use, one that delivers the healthcare that people need fairly and without regard to their ability to pay. They fear that any reforms which they might propose as to how the NHS is run will be portrayed as a fundamental assault on that principle and, quite reasonably, will lose them votes.
Of course it is true that the public love the NHS. Every poll confirms that. However, the important point is this: yes, the public love the NHS, just as we all love our children. We would not give them up for anything. But, as parents, we are also fully aware of their many failings. We do not ignore those failings or say that they do not exist: we try to correct them by encouragement and exhortation. Therefore the question which I would ask noble Lords to address this afternoon is this: why cannot politicians on both sides of the House make this simple admission; namely, that all of us adhere to the founding principle of the NHS—the principle that necessary medical care should be available to everyone who needs it, regardless of their ability to pay—but that the precise way to deliver that objective of a nationalised healthcare system now looks increasingly out of date and failing?
The NHS is a huge industry. One million people work in it. It holds assets worth £25 billion in buildings and land alone. Reform would be no cakewalk. But until we accept that there is a problem and that new ideas are necessary, we shall not even make a start on serious reform. The first step in helping an errant child is to recognise the problem. Only then can you steel yourself to take whatever painful or difficult action is necessary to protect that very one you love.
However, the trouble is that while politicians remain in a state of denial or fear, people are suffering. It is an awful thing to be on a waiting list, even if the complaint turns out to be minor. You do not know whether it is minor. You do know that there are risks in surgery. It preys on your mind for the entire duration of the long wait. You worry that the condition may turn inoperable by the time you get treatment as, tragically, has happened recently in more than one case. At the very least, you may be incapacitated and unable to work to support your family.

389
When targets are set for an industry that is unable to cope, the problem simply leaks out somewhere else. So now we have waiting-list targets, but the wait even to see a consultant is getting longer and longer. I have friends with a nine year-old child who developed a hacking cough which became worse and worse. Eventually, they ended up on a waiting list to see the consultant. The list was nine months long. It took the consultant less than a minute to diagnose the cause—just a nervous cough—and to suggest a course of action. But in the mean time, the parents had been driven to distraction by worry. Convinced that it was due to an allergy, they bought a special Hoover, replaced all the bedding, threw out all the carpets and banned suspected foods.
That is just one tiny case among millions. It may seem trivial, but no case is trivial to those who are involved. The inability of politicians to admit the truth is causing unnecessary distress, worry, grief, pain, misery, heartache and even death in families up and down the country. Should not that shock us into an honest debate, however difficult?
I know that on the other side of the House noble Lords worry that if we break away from our traditional forms of delivery, we shall see the development of a two-tier health service. However, the truth is that we already have a two-tier health service. If you have private health insurance, you can see a consultant the week after next, you can have a scan the week after next and you can have the operation when you want it. If you do not have private health insurance, you may have an agonising wait that lasts for a very long time indeed.
When I was a Member of Parliament, my wife dealt with my constituency correspondence. She now works for another Member of Parliament. She tells me that the letters about the health service now coming in to that Member of Parliament are completely different in character from those that I used to receive. Two cases came in this week, one concerning a woman who had her fortnightly chemotherapy treatments cancelled at a day's notice. She expected to stay in hospital, but because they had no bed for her, she was expected to stay in a hotel while the chemotherapy took place. Hundreds of cases like that exist. All noble Lords know of examples from their own experience and every Member of Parliament knows it from their postbag.
Is more money the solution? I certainly believe that it can form part of the solution, but it is not the whole solution. In Scotland, we spend 25 per cent more on the NHS per head than is the case in England and Wales. Everyone acknowledges that the Scottish health service is much better, but no one says that it is perfect. To raise English spending on health by the same proportion would require a vast injection of money, vastly more than the Government have promised to put in. A huge rise in taxes would be necessary to pay for it, although I doubt whether the English would like to see their taxes rise by one-third. Even in Scotland severe pressure will be put on those spending levels as the Barnett formula is reassessed.
390
The Prime Minister has noted that health spending in most European countries is a good deal higher than ours. The clinicians have noted that their records on life-saving treatments for cancer or heart disease, to take two examples, are also a great deal better. So, in his unguarded "Frost interview" moments, Mr Blair sees European levels of spending as a target, an aspiration or whatever.
But Europe spends almost exactly the same as we do on healthcare in the public sector. The difference is that it spends a great deal more privately. If we are to find new money for healthcare, that is where it will have to come from. The Government, or at least their modernising leadership, know this, but are unable to admit it for the reasons that I have mentioned. So we continue to fall behind and people continue to suffer and to die.
Yes, more money would provide at least part of the answer but, no, getting the money from taxpayers and spending it through today's politicised institutions is not the way forward. Whatever is put in will be simply swallowed up. There is no point in pedalling any faster when the chain on your bike is broken—you have to fix the chain. We have to fix the UK healthcare funding and delivery system.
I said earlier that the NHS is a nationalised industry. However, of course it is not only the provision of healthcare that is nationalised: the way that healthcare is paid for is also nationalised. Most of our healthcare spending comes through taxation. The trouble with that is that the money goes straight from Whitehall to doctors and hospitals without patients being given a look in. So the service looks upwards to its political paymasters instead of downwards to its customers.
The customers, meanwhile, quite naturally think that, if someone else is paying, they will have as much healthcare as they can get. Thus, some people will call out doctors for self-limiting conditions or clog up the surgery to get a bottle of Calpol or a prescription—and why not? But all such unnecessary demands put on the system mean that more serious problems go untreated or are treated only after a long and painful wait. Somehow we have to restore the link between paying and receiving so that people realise that healthcare is not free, but that it has a real and often considerable cost. That must be done—I emphasise this point— in such a way that those who cannot pay are not disadvantaged.
Other European countries have found ways to do this. In many there is state funding for the poorest, but those with above-average earnings are expected to insure themselves. In Britain, prescriptions are free for certain groups, including those over retirement age, however rich they may be. But really, why should the Duke of Edinburgh be entitled to free medicine? Other European countries are not so daft. In some, you pay proportionately for your prescription, depending on your income level, by presenting your smartcard at the chemist's. We have endless debates about whether to provide expensive drugs such as viagra free of charge or, more seriously, Interferon, which is now available according to your postcode. Other countries solve this

391
problem by making everyone pay for their drugs up to some set annual limit. After that, it becomes free. So people are induced not to demand prescriptions unless they need them, while people with chronic conditions are fully protected.
European politicians, even in the most socialist of European countries, do not seem to get hung up on this kind of thing. They see its benefits in terms of choking off unnecessary demand and encouraging people to take more of an interest in their own health because they know that there is a cost if they do not. So why are we not honest enough as politicians to explore these options?
I am sure that the Government are right that private insurance is not the answer. Insurance is meant for infrequent but catastrophic events which could wipe you out financially if you had to pay for them. It is no good for common, minor problems because the paperwork costs more than the fix, and because sometimes people volunteer for things they do not really need if someone else, such as an insurer, is paying.
Instead, it seems to me that we need a mixture of insurance and saving. We need the state or private insurers to underwrite the infrequent and "big-ticket" events, but we need people to save for the smaller, common events. Then they will see the true cost. Insurers have been very slow to design such schemes. Some insurers actually give money back for using the NHS. That is a ridiculous state of affairs.
There are a variety of ways in which this issue could be approached. I do not say that I know precisely what is the right answer, but I do say that we should be discussing these models. When people are waiting and suffering and dying, why are we so hesitant?
I appreciate that I have been speaking now for quite some time, but perhaps it is symptomatic that, in the debate so far, few speeches have addressed the healthcare issue. It seems to me that it is by far the biggest problem facing our country. The fact that they saw no leadership in this area may account for the failure of voters to turn up on polling day.
Perhaps I may now say something about the provision side of healthcare. We all agree that an important service such as healthcare must be provided and that, if necessary, the state should pay for it. But that is not to say that the state has to make the actual provision. The state pays for motorways and bridges, but private contractors, not civil servants, actually build them. The state pays welfare benefits so that poor families can buy food and clothing, but it does not run supermarkets, thank goodness. So why should the state run our hospitals? Why not harness the benefits of competition and let private or voluntary groups provide state-funded medical care?
The Government are groping towards this when they accept the need for a compact with the private sector. It is obvious that the private sector can do some things better than the NHS and that the NHS can do some things better than the private sector. So
392
collaboration makes sense. But further down, there is suspicion—even outright hostility—against any genuine collaboration. The spirit of "Dobbo" lives on.
I wish the Government well in their groping. Certainly on this side of the House they will find tremendous support for a genuine partnership, but one which recognises that we cannot use the private sector simply to be dumped on when there is a winter crisis. We need a genuine partnership and a genuine and comprehensive review of how to get additional resources into healthcare in our country.
5.4 p.m.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I should also like to put on record my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Bassam. He and I have something in common: we both come from the same stable—that is, the Brighton Council. The difference is that I was there about 15 years before him. The second advantage that we had is that we both supported the same football team. However, during my time they won promotion to the first division; during his time they went down to the fourth division. I do not hold that against him. I have never questioned his judgment and he has always been very helpful. Equally, I wish the new Minister well in his job.
Her Majesty's gracious Speech gives us an opportunity to comment on the Government's legislative programme. It also gives us the opportunity to talk about matters that have been left out. My noble friend Lord McNally has spoken about some of the issues identified by the Home Secretary as being the key plank of the Government's legislative programme.
The words spoken by the new Home Secretary are no different from what we heard from the previous Home Secretary. He states:
"Tackling crime is our top priority. To do that we need a modern Criminal Justice System with the tools to do the job. Modernisation, both of the Criminal Justice System and the police, will form a key part of that".
Those are fine words with which no one would disagree. There is no doubt that if we want to reduce crime and provide justice for all, we need more resources. As the noble Lord, Lord Cope, pointed out, in the previous Parliament we saw a fall in the number of police officers.
Too often, simplistic solutions have been offered. Many are impractical and irrelevant; some have not worked or not been used; and, despite promising to reduce paperwork, the system has become more bureaucratic and some of the measures have undermined civil liberties.
Pursuing a policy on crime which is superficially populist does not mean that it is effective. Look at our prisons, which are overflowing at a huge cost to the taxpayer. Violent crime is on the rise and the number of convictions is down. The money spent on dealing with crime is wholly disproportionate to the money spent on crime prevention.
I agree with my noble friend Lord McNally that we should move away from the knee-jerk reaction to crime. The last Conservative Home Secretary, Michael Howard, famously said that "prison works". He failed

393
to explain that half the prisoners in British gaols go on to reoffend on release. Perhaps I may say here that I welcome the forthcoming debate on prisons in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hurd of Westwell.
It is important to recognise that prisons have not only become the dustbins of society's ills but that we continue to subscribe to the outdated notion that prison works. When will we accept that our prison system is under serious strain? Why is it that we still find it necessary to subscribe to expensive and unsatisfactory disposals more widely than the rest of Europe?
As Home Secretary, Winston Churchill said in July 1910 that,
"the mood and temper of the public in regard to the treatment of crime and criminals is one of the most unfailing tests of the civilisation of any country".
This must be the starting point in establishing any legislative framework dealing with this subject.
We must also accept that the frenzy generated by the media does not necessarily reflect the public mood, but, in the absence of pronouncements from political leaders, we often assume that such is the case. The controversy surrounding the Bulger case clearly demonstrates this.
The links between social exclusion and crime are crystal clear; we have to look only at the characteristics of people in our prisons. More than half of the young people in custody have been excluded from school; two-thirds were unemployed before imprisonment and 40 per cent have been in care; 60 per cent of prisoners have literacy and numeracy skills at or below the basic skill level; more than 40 per cent have drug problems, and the proportion with psychiatric problems ranges between 40 per cent and 75 per cent. For many prisoners from minority ethnic groups, who comprise about 18 per cent of our prison population compared with 5.5 per cent of the general population, social disadvantage is confounded and reinforced by racial discrimination.
It is easy to fall into the trap of thinking that the country and, in particular, young people are becoming increasingly lawless. That is not true. A large number of our population are law-abiding. It has been proved again and again that the ability of criminal justice legislation to influence the crime rate is strictly limited. If that is the case—and the statistics prove that it is—we have seriously to ask what changes are necessary to reduce offending. I am grateful to the Minister and delighted to hear him say that the Government intend to examine past legislation, because there seems to be an insatiable appetite on the part of the Home Office to promote legislation without due care as to the consequences.
Burnley, Bradford, Oldham and Leeds are clear examples of failure to bring economic and social benefits to all our people. We have the most comprehensive race relations legislation in western Europe; yet it has failed to promote equality for all our citizens. We have strategies to tackle social exclusion;
394
yet it is evident that those policies have failed to remove some of our citizens from the cycle of social deprivation.
Such situations are often exploited by extremists, supplemented by irresponsible political pronouncements which inflame the situation. Politicians should be worried about the role of extremist organisations. Let me make it clear that racial attacks perpetrated by ethnic minorities on whites, or by whites on ethnic minorities, should be condemned. Equally, if we are not careful, we shall find that the recent gains made by the extremists in Oldham and in other constituencies in the North are a clear reflection of the fact that racism raises its ugly head when elements in society set out to exploit race for their own advancement. What are the Government doing about this?
Britain is not a "foreign land". It has always been a nation of migrants. They have contributed to a booming economy and have reduced labour shortages. Look at our health service. Would it survive without their contribution? Would our transport infrastructure survive without their contribution? Look at our small businesses—where do we go for our sweets and newspapers? Look at our post offices—who is running them? Who is providing services in rural areas? Nearly a third of doctors nationally are now non-UK born and nearly a third of all nurses in inner London are non-UK trained. We should never forget that a proportion of today's refugees will be tomorrow's citizens and will make a valuable contribution to the economic development of the United Kingdom.
The UN High Commissioner for Refugees has stated that the protection that is owed to refugees under the 1951 UN Convention on Refugees may be rendered meaningless if persons in search of protection and assistance are unable to reach the territories of states that are party to the convention.
We believe that some of the provisions of the Immigration and Asylum Act are a barrier to human rights protection. The Act seeks to prevent those who are at risk of persecution from fleeing their persecutors. Almost all avenues of entry are now closed. I have yet to receive an answer to a question that I have often posed in this House; namely, how can genuine asylum seekers who are being persecuted enter this country legally? I am still awaiting a reply. Here is a challenge to the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, in his new role. Can he provide an answer?
As I have said repeatedly, immigration and asylum issues are fairly emotive. But that should not stifle discussion and debate on how such matters are to be tackled. Despite the nature and effects of various immigration and asylum legislation, the circumstances surrounding them remain contentious.
There is evidence that fairness has often been sacrificed in preference to a faster and firmer policy. The current asylum policy is in disarray—it is in a mess; and the voucher system is a disgrace. Life under such a system is no bed of roses. Perhaps I may quote from an article that appeared in the South London Press, based

395
on what Donnachadh McCarthy found out when he spent a day as an asylum seeker in Brixton after exchanging some cash for vouchers:
"Braving staring eyes, he attempted to buy a cold remedy in Boots on Brixton Road with the voucher. Handing it over to the cashier, he mumbled in broken English: 'Do you take?'
"The cashier took the £5 voucher and looked at it up close, then studied her customer. After a tense pause, she walked to the back of the shop to consult a superior.
"He took one look at the voucher, rolled his eyes, cocked his head, indicated that they were not valid at the major high street store. Our pseudo asylum seeker received his moribund currency back and left the store in full view of a host of staring eyes.
"Next, he tried to buy a tube ticket. Again, after a few puzzled looks, access was denied.
"Taking a bus, the same.
"So on to Sainsbury's Local for a spot of shopping. Walking round the store he picks up a few essential items that this slimmest of budgets allows, and brings them to the till. But this time a sympathetic cashier smiles and informs our 'bogus' asylum seeker that he cannot give him any change from the £5 voucher. So as the queue begins to gather, he has to rush back around the shop and get a few extra items.
"Even so, he only makes it up to a £4 total with a few pieces of fruit, which have to be weighed and priced at the till, losing him £1 of his precious £36 budget".
That is the reality of the voucher scheme to many asylum seekers in this country. The administration of the system costs more than the relief it provides. We were promised a review. Where is it?
The history of immigration is one of success for this country. The integration of immigrants, refugees and asylum seekers has been truly remarkable. Their contribution is important and valued. Also, we are seeing a labour shortage in key areas of our economy. There are shortages of skilled workers in the IT sector and shortfalls in the health sector. Fruit is being left unpicked for want of the necessary labour. Added to this are demographic changes. Our society is ageing: by 2050, nearly 23 per cent of Britons—14.7 million—will be over 65. Even the Metropolitan Police are keen to seek recruits among those who have applied for asylum. Equally, unless we open the door for the intake of migrants to provide the necessary skills, we are heading for serious trouble in future years. Many Western countries have found this out, to their cost.
There is also serious concern about the asylum process. The Government may have got the initial decision time down to two months, but one way of speeding up the process was to ask applicants to fill in a 28-page questionnaire in English within a week and, if they did not do so, to refuse their application on grounds of "non-compliance". Last year, 27 per cent of refusals were for that reason and not because of any defect in the substance of the application. As a result of a recent court case, caseworkers still have to consider any information that arrives after the one-week period before a decision is taken, but other than that points of substance have to be considered by adjudicators. So the two-month target has been achieved, but at the expense of the quality of decision-taking.
396
Under the Tories, the immigration casework department had been allowed to run down. From 1998 onwards, it had a programme of recruitment and training so that, by the beginning of 2000, decisions had begun to exceed new applications and the backlog was gradually reduced. By the end of April 2001, the backlog had been reduced to what is described as "frictional level" and the number of initial decisions started to tail off. In the meantime, however, the appeals system was unable to cope with the extra workload. The backlog of appeal cases has risen by 11,000 since the start of 2000, or about three months' work. In addition, the appeals support section is simply not sending cases to the Appellate Authority to the tune of 45,000 cases since the beginning of 2000. This delay is not counted anywhere; so the Home Office can say that it is reaching its targets, while applicants are still having to wait in the queue for over a year.
The Immigration Law Practitioners Association, which represents the lawyers who act for asylum seekers, says that, although they are now funded by the Legal Services Commission and that that is working well, they are at the limit of their capacity to deal with cases, particularly appeals. Since the beginning of this year, 3,300 appeals a month have been determined. That figure is still woefully short of the rate that is necessary to cope with the huge increase in decisions. It is even more difficult to increase the throughput of the appeals system than it was to speed up the first decisions. The infrastructure of courtrooms is not there; not enough adjudicators are available; and there are not even the lawyers to act for either the applicants or the Immigration Service. This is a recipe for chaos.
In the meantime, more and more asylum seekers are being detained, most of them in prison despite the Government's official policy that special purpose detention centres should be used. They are in the process of building new centres for 1,800 detainees, the first of which, Harmodsworth near London Heathrow, is due to open at the end of July. In the meanwhile, the Government said that in order to speed up the process of removing asylum seekers who are turned down from 12,000 to 30,000 cases a year, the Prison Service was being asked to provide another 500 places to accommodate those about to be returned. These extra detainees are not wholly, or perhaps even mainly, at the end of the asylum process. The exercise is being used to mask an apparent increase in detention on arrival, coupled with a tougher attitude by adjudicators on applications for bail.
Apart from those technically detained, there are also those who are held at Oakington as a condition of their temporary admission. Again, its purpose is to accommodate 400 asylum seekers. They are processed there in a week, and, if refused—as most of them are—they are either transferred to detention centres or prisons. That must cause us concern. Perhaps the Minister would care to study what I have said and perhaps write to me about the concern that I have expressed.

397
I am concerned that we are going to miss the boat as far as concerns radical reform of race relations legislation. We have seen some progress in amendments introduced from time to time. We need to look at the relationship between the Human Rights Act and legislation relating to gender, race, disability, sexual orientation, religion and discrimination on other improper grounds. Is it not time for the structure appropriate to equality bodies to be examined? We need to know what is being done in this respect.
There are also concerns about the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000, which, for the first time, brought immigration control within the scope of the Act. But its impact will be limited if immigration officers are given a blank cheque to discriminate based on statistics that they compile on intelligence that they gather. The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, will be aware that there was considerable discomfort in the other place that there should be such exceptions. Will the noble Lord examine the current authorisations and report back as to whether he is satisfied that they cover only those situations where discrimination is absolutely necessary and justifiable, and when the objectives of the Immigration Service cannot reasonably be achieved by other non-discriminatory means?
Perhaps I may conclude with reference to the retirement of Paul Whitehouse, Chief Constable of Sussex. I am concerned about the wider implications of the way that this matter has been handled. I was a member of the Sussex Police Authority when Mr Whitehouse was appointed. I make no comment as to the handling of the fatal shooting incident. The investigation was supervised by the Police Complaints Authority and a separate inquiry was conducted by Sir John Hoddinott. These recommendations were acted upon and the appropriate disciplinary action was taken.
May I ask why it was necessary for the Home Secretary to dictate to the police authority the action that it should take? The obsession that everything must be controlled centrally must be rejected. This is bound to compromise the operational independence of our police forces. We have been promised a police Bill. We shall resist any more centralised control or, for that matter, a national police force. We shall look at the police disciplinary procedures with great care. That will determine how we should deal with such situations. The last thing that we need to do is to deny justice either to the Ashley family or to Paul Whitehouse.
5.24 p.m.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws: My Lords, I should like to join in the welcome given to my noble friend Lord Rooker. Just listening to his speech today was refreshing. Of course, he is no maiden speaker, but it was delightful to hear my noble friend express his willingness to listen before pressing ahead with change. That is a style that will he particularly welcomed in this House. I have long been an admirer of my noble friend from afar. He made a very considerable contribution—one insufficiently
398
acknowledged—to the national debates on education. I know that my noble friend's presence will undoubtedly enrich this House and that he will make many friends on all sides of the Chamber in the years ahead.
I am sure that my noble friend has been warned that, as Minister for the Home Office, he will not always have an easy ride in this House—not even from colleagues on his own Benches. I assure my noble friend that any criticism is always made in the spirit of the warmest good will, but I, too, like the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, have been a critic of the Government's policy of vouchers for asylum seekers. I. too, have been concerned about a penal policy which has seen a continuing rise in the prison population; and I, too, have been concerned about the treatment of juvenile offenders. However, it will come as no surprise to noble Lords that I am here wishing to raise issues concerning civil liberties.
I ask: what is this all about? Why is it that we are seeing an extraordinary draconian assault upon civil liberties happening in the early 21st century? How does it come about that the Labour Party, my party, which has always passionately championed civil liberties and been so vigilant of their encroachment, now so prepared in government to abandon some of its principled positions? I tended to think that, as with the economy, a new government were anxious to prove that we on the Labour Benches could engage rigorously and prove that, in our grip, other areas of government could be handled as effectively as any other government had handled them. Perhaps with the issue of crime we were again wanting to show that we, too, could be tough. When I was feeling less optimistic, I even thought that perhaps it was simply a display of machismo.
But I now think that what we are seeing is something that is, perhaps, more extraordinary; and it is happening without enough discussion. One of the reasons that there is not enough discussion is that citizens are becoming distanced from the processes of government. What I propose and should like to see discussed on other occasions in this House is the claim that somehow we are at this time, in the early stages of the 21st century, reaching what some people have described as "the end of history"—the end, some claim, of ideology. In among all this there is a notion that we now have more or less a degree of consensus politics and that with that a modern state has evolved: a modern state that is somehow benign, a vanilla-flavoured modern state that is incapable of tyranny. Washed clean of ideological conflict, this new form of state is presented as even-handed, as an arbiter between citizens, a state which is itself incapable in its managerial manifestations of any serious abuses of citizens' rights.
At every turn we are told that there are procedures, appeal processes, and opportunities to sue for compensation if anything goes wrong. The drivers of the modern state are cost effectiveness and "pragmatism"—that very popular word—and, of course, the Human Rights Act is evoked as the new mopper-up of the occasional default by state

399
functionaries. To espousers of this new thinking, civil liberties protections may seem out-moded, old-fashioned, unfit for the 21st century, and in need of "modernising"—another of those new words, or frequently-used words. Civil liberties in this context become an encumbrance if you want to reform the legal system; if you want to save money; if you want to speed up the court timetable; and if you want to get more convictions.
We all in this House want to end unnecessary delays and to improve the system. We all want to see wrongdoers brought to justice. So why do civil liberties matter? Is this about clinging to ancient kitchen gods which have outlived their usefulness? I suggest that to understand civil liberties we have to understand the nature of power and to understand the state. We have to recognise that, although the modern state may present itself differently in some facets and although we may be in the process of modernising it, the essential elements remain the same.
It is in the very nature of power that it has a huge capacity for corrupting. Those who acquire power find it very addictive and seek, even unconsciously, to extend it. The state's powers have to be held in check in the interests of the citizen. Carefully calibrated checks and balances have to be created over centuries. I say with conviction that tyranny does not just come in a uniform, it also comes in an open-necked shirt and even in an Armani suit.
Civil liberties are our protection against the state. They are your protection and mine, as I so often say to juries. Encroachments on civil liberties are always sold on the basis that they are designed to convict the guilty, and that decent citizens have nothing to fear. The rhetoric of all governments who reduce civil liberties is that they are doing so for good reason in the interests of the people and to counter disruptive elements in society. The current rhetoric is that these changes are required in the interests of victims. These changes will undoubtedly create more victims. If this is seen as part of a modernising programme, all I need to remind your Lordships is that there is nothing modern about removing rights—governments have always done that.
Civil liberties are not the invention of effete intellectuals who live in Hampstead or Islington and have a soft spot for criminals. Our civil liberties were forged in the painful heat of experience over generations by all sorts of people: "revolting" peasants, the Tolpuddle Martyrs, Clydeside workers, servants vis-à-vis their masters and, more recently, the Guildford Four. To reduce trial by jury to those whom the state decides deserve trial by jury is an encroachment of civil liberties. To put an accused's criminal record before a jury and thereby erode the presumption of innocence is another of those encroachments. To retry offenders who are acquitted until the state gets the result it desires is an assault on fundamental principle.
I refer to what seems to be on the face of it a sensible possible change; namely, removing the double jeopardy rule in murder. The argument is made that DNA may be forthcoming which shows that someone
400
who has been acquitted may well be guilty. Unless one makes that process retrospective, which would be a very serious matter, it is hard to imagine murder trials nowadays where that is likely to happen. Such cases will probably be incredibly rare. The problem is they will probably be highly publicised and notorious. The suggestion is that only a set of senior judges in the Court of Appeal would decide that the new evidence was of such an extraordinary nature that they would send such a case back for retrial. Where would one ever find a jury that would not be affected by the fact that a Court of Appeal of senior judges had decided that the evidence was so compelling that they would throw aside a previous acquittal? How could one possibly expect a fair second trial? The practicality of the matter is the very reason that previous governments have considered it a change that could not hold water.
Defending liberty does not mean being on the side of those who commit crime. Our civil liberties are the mortar in the architecture of our society. Interfere with that glue and there will be a serious price in terms of alienation and loss of trust. Trust is essential to good governance. I make a plea to the Government to think again. Our civil liberties are precious.
5.36 p.m.
Lord Colwyn: My Lords, debates on the Queen's Speech seem to move from one subject to another without any specific direction. After the excellent speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, I feel a little embarrassed to return to health. However, I do so and I declare an interest in that I am a practising dental surgeon. I wish to comment on dentistry and the National Health Service.
I take this opportunity to thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, for the time he spent in the Department of Health with responsibility for dentistry. While congratulating him on his new role, I hope that he will ensure that the new Minister, Hazel Blears, is thoroughly briefed to ensure that she has a similar comprehensive understanding of the dental profession, which is a vital and essential part of the health service.
In his speech at the BDA conference in Harrogate in May, the Minister paid tribute to the dental profession—something rarely heard from Ministers in recent years. He said that he was impressed by dentists' professionalism and standards and thanked the many thousands of dentists who had stuck with the NHS. He admitted that that support should not be taken for granted and said that he understood why so many dentists had felt unable to continue devoting themselves to the NHS. He stressed the importance of NHS dentistry as a core service matching the fundamental principles that were laid down in last year's NHS Plan—a service shaped around patients, which constantly improves itself and which supports and values everyone who works in it.
The Queen's Speech proposes significant changes to NHS management, with the abolition of regional offices and the streamlining of health authorities to 30 strategic centres, and the passing over of 75 per cent of

401
the NHS budget to primary care trusts, which themselves will be merged to between 250 to 300. PCTs will have responsibility for contractor services, including dentistry.
But PCTs have no experience of commissioning dentistry and have no existing expertise in dentistry. It is imperative for the future health of primary care dentistry, both in the general dental service, the community dental service and the personal dental service, that the reshaped PCTs have a dentist on the trust board to advise at the highest level of decision-making and, moreover, have access to the highest quality of dental advice for service commissioning, quality standards, health needs and outcomes. That is in short supply. There is also the question of how PCTs will interact with the profession. What is the future shape of local dental committees and what areas should they cover?
In March the Health Select Committee reported on its inquiry into access to primary care dentistry in the NHS and the effects of the recent strategy proposals. It stated that the time for talking was over and that NHS dentistry needed action now. There were too many reports, too much talk and too little action. The members concluded that dentistry had never been fully integrated into the NHS and that as a result major health inequalities exist. The present arrangements for accessing NHS dentistry are inequitable, uncertain and getting worse. Patients do not know where they stand. Unregistered patients find it hard to get any form of care and registered patients can lose that status without redress, often without knowing they have done so. Patients do not always get the advanced conservative treatment they need and some vulnerable groups of patients face even more problems.
The Government's paper on NHS dentistry was disappointing to the profession as it seemed concerned with access, to the exclusion of a huge number of other important issues. Can the Minister repeat the assurance that he gave to the profession before the election that the document, Modernising NHS Dentistry, was just the start of the process to revitalise and reinvest in NHS dentistry; and that there is still a need and a commitment to look at some of the endemic problems that have bedevilled the profession for decades?
With a full parliamentary term ahead of them, the Government have a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to look at a better system of providing primary care dentistry. Are they willing to follow up the conclusions that the Commons Select Committee on Health demanded in March of this year?
I have referred to access and the Government's promise that everyone will have an NHS dentist by September. I am sure the statistics will show that this promise will be met. But a survey of vocational dental practitioners—those who are in their first year after qualification—has shown that 71 per cent are considering a career in private practice; and that only 10 per cent will consider working in a dental access centre or the personal dentist services. The Government need dentists to staff their access centres.
402
The survey shows that that is the last place in which the majority of them want to work unless it is short-term employment before moving on to somewhere permanent. Health professionals have been asked to make their clinical experience evidence based. Perhaps the recently announced fundamental review of the workforce should have been a priority rather than an afterthought.
The Government will fail to stem the flow of dentists out of the NHS if they do not tackle the huge bureaucracy in NHS primary care dentistry. For example, the dental modernisation fund—the £35 million announced for upgrading NHS surgeries—is worth about £1,000 per practice. To obtain that, practices have to wade through a 17-page document which explains all the complications of the process. The Government must commit themselves to simplifying a system which half the time their own Ministers do not understand. The public is confused and the profession is angry that the system regulating dentistry is so complicated. The only people who defend it are the bureaucrats. When it involves a key part of the primary care system, that is not good enough.
The General Dental Council's programme for reform has government support. For several years the GDC has been developing proposals to modernise its outdated regulatory structure, allowing it to strengthen its role in protecting patients, including promoting good oral health and high standards of dentistry. Until recently, those aspirations were frustrated by the lack of parliamentary time needed to amend the legislation.
On 27th April of this year the department published a draft order to amend the Dentists Act 1984. That order is the first in a series and deals with a modernisation of the GDC constitution. It will enable the council to reduce its numbers, increase lay representation and become more responsive and strategic. It will make continuing professional development a condition of registration for all dentists.
These two reforms are only the first in a series. The Government have confirmed that they will be consulting on two further orders which will, among other things, reform the council's conduct and health procedures, introduce procedures for reviewing the performance of dentists and enable the registration and regulation of the entire dental team. The GDC is also working on proposals to put in place robust arrangements to deal with complaints about non-NHS dentistry and the regulation of dental bodies corporate.
It is a formidable programme of reform to which the GDC is fully committed and the Government have agreed. I hope that the Minister will shortly be able to announce a timetable for the reforms., which are essential for the protection of patients and the continued high standards of dentists and the dental team.
I have concerns about a non-NHS complaints system. I hope to be able to make that clear when the relevant order is introduced.

403
The Minister will be aware that the non-consultant dental anaesthetists register is to close shortly. By the end of this year it will be mandatory for all general anaesthetics to take place in hospital. I have repeatedly asked the Government for details of waiting lists for patients who were previously treated under general anaesthetic in dental practices and who are now transferred into the hospital service. It was a great mistake to take away the right of general dental practitioners to treat patients in the way they considered best. It was an even greater mistake to establish a register, known as the tripartite list, of non-consultant dentists, many of whom have spent much of their working lives providing GA and sedation to a very high standard, providing further education and financing essential equipment, but to drop the whole idea now that the surgeries have been set up.
Anaesthesia is lost, but there is now a problem because so many GCPs do not have the skills to provide sedation or the education to consider its provision. Many patients are being referred to hospital for general anaesthesia when they could have their treatment carried out under sedation in dental surgeries. The GDC is addressing the issue and I hope that it will create acceptable standards in the teaching of pain and anxiety control and take advice from those in the profession who have spent many years working with anaesthesia and sedation. Patient safety should be based on education not regulation.
In the debate on the Address last year, I asked the Minister for news on the implementation of fluoridation. He wrote to me confirming the fact that the York University study has shown that fluoridating water helps to reduce tooth decay and that there are areas in the country where better dental health is associated with fluoridation. He said that the Government would be having further discussions with water companies and local authorities and that there should be more good quality research. He referred to the Medical Research Council and a request that it investigates where it is possible to carry out further research to strengthen the evidence currently available. He said that when this action was completed the Government would review the need for legislation.
I suppose it is easier to say this from this side of the House, but surely any government with a marginal interest in public health and health inequalities would have acted on water fluoridation. This Government have claimed to have a serious and major interest in public health. Yet they have completely failed to do anything to progress the most important oral public health measure available to them. Is it possible to get a commitment that the Government will work to address concerns about water fluoridation and will act at the earliest opportunity to introduce fluoridation where there is evidence of greatest need and where local population, local authorities, health authorities and water companies are willing to introduce water fluoridation?
Lord Monson: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Does he realise that every other
404
European country, with the exception of the Republic of Ireland, shuns fluoridation? Indeed, some have banned it, considering that the risks outweigh the benefits. Could this be one of those rare occasions when we are wrong and the rest of Europe is right?
Lord Colwyn: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his intervention. If I had seen him there I might have omitted this part about fluoridation! I shall mention the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, later.
When debating the Address last year, I reminded the Minister of the general concern about dental corporate bodies, which some dentists saw as a threat to their practices. It may well be that they just provide another way for patients to access services. But I feel that the restrictive practice which prevents other practitioners working together to set up similar environments is probably contrary to European restrictive practice law. In his letter to me, which was much appreciated, following the debate the Minister agreed with my views on corporate bodies and said that the necessary order would be laid once it was possible to amend the Dentists Act following the regulatory reform Bill. Can he confirm that this change is still on track?
I should like to take this opportunity to ask the Minister, or perhaps the Chief Dental Officer, why dental practitioners are prevented by law from prescribing medicines for patients by telephone. During my practising life, I have regularly prescribed simple analgesics or antibiotics direct to pharmacists so that the patients could avoid a journey to the surgery. Unlike the service provided for medical practitioners, I am aware that pharmacists are not obliged to accept telephoned or faxed prescriptions from dental practitioners. In the past most pharmacists have turned a blind eye and helped, but recently dentists have had many more problems prescribing in that way. I had to waste time recently speaking to five pharmacists in Sunbury before I could find one who would provide a simple antibiotic for a patient and save him the journey into central London. It is time that dentists were allowed to prescribe in a similar manner to their medical colleagues and I should be grateful if this simple measure could be incorporated into some appropriate legislation in the near future.
Any speech of mine on health would not be complete without a reference to funding. I stress yet again that the assumption that greater availability of medical services, more hospitals and clinics, doctors, nurses and health-related personnel and the development of a wider range of drugs and surgical techniques will lead to an improvement in health, increased longevity or an eradication of disease is ill founded. A better health service is not all about money. Health promotion is about the maintenance of good physical and mental health. It has very little to do with medicine and disease management and everything to do with how people live and their social and psychological environments.
My final point is about complementary medicine. If my noble friend Lord Baldwin had been here, I know that he would have made a powerful speech on natural

405
medicine and argued vehemently against me—and with the noble Lord, Lord Monson—on fluoridation. He cannot be here today. I know that the House will join me in expressing our deepest sympathy on the recent death of his wife.
In our debate at the end of March on the Select Committee report on complementary and alternative medicine, we thanked the Government for their acceptance of virtually all the recommendations. The Minister announced that he would be asking the National Health Service Research and Development Workforce Capacity Implementation Group to consider research capacity for development needs in complementary and alternative medicine and how they might be met. He also said that the exact amount of funding that may become available depended on the outcome of discussions with those who can take forward such matters. It would be helpful to have some indication of whether those discussions have taken place and whether any decision has been taken on the written strategies from the organisations that suggested ways forward for research.
The concept of integrated medicine, with complementary therapies working hand in hand with routine medicine, is the way forward. I hope that the Government will remain committed to their response. They said:
"The Government agrees that there is scope for closer integration of CAM and conventional medicine. This is in the interests of all relevant disciplines and, above all, in the interests of their patients".
As many noble Lords have said during this series of debates on the gracious Speech, it is virtually impossible for the Minister who replies to cover all the issues that are raised. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, who set a most helpful precedent last year, will be able to write to me in due course.
5.51 p.m.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I add my congratulations to the Minister on his maiden speech. I also congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, on retaining his ministerial position. Those in another place do not always realise how hard some Ministers in your Lordships' House work. I thought that the noble Lord might have moved up the health ladder after his hard work.
I welcome the Government's commitment in the gracious Speech to making health one of their main priorities in this Session. Some form of health crisis can affect many people in many different ways, often when they least expect it. I am told that one of the Prime Minister's favourite sayings is, "What counts is what works". The gracious Speech states:
"A Bill will decentralise power and direct resources to National Health Service staff, give patients greater influence on the running of the NHS, and strengthen regulation of the health professions".
Sometimes, the health professionals do not know how to treat specialised conditions. Conditions such as spinal injury, haemophilia, children's heart conditions, babies with cleft palates, brain injury and many others need treatment in specialised units where the staff know what to do. A lack of expertise in such
406
conditions causes difficulties. If the Government do not listen and do not develop national strategies, there will be more disasters like the Bristol tragedy, when children died because of a lack of expert skills.
Surely there must be a balance. If the Government decentralise too much, there will be cover-ups and national standards will fall. The biggest waste of National Health Service money, which is taxpayers' money, is on large compensation payments in negligence claims. The human heartbreak in many such cases is even more important. Recently we heard of a man who died in agony with a tumour on his tonsil. The last doctor who saw him told him that he had flu. The country has lost a lot of confidence in a profession that was trusted and is vital for the wellbeing of the UK and beyond. Correct diagnosis is all-important. We must have protection for patients over cases such as Shipman. No doubt many shortcomings will emerge from that case.
We need well trained, dedicated doctors. Why is there a blockage in the training and registration of some doctors who come from abroad and want to train to be surgeons? We need up and coming, first-class surgeons with the right skills to tackle the ever-growing needs of the health service. I know personally of two such young doctors who come from South Africa. They have perfect English. How many more must there be? I shall not let the matter rest. The Government say that we need more doctors, yet there is a blockage. Surely the situation should be unblocked. I can send the Minister the names of those two doctors and the hospitals where they are working.
I am also told that nurses coming from such countries as New Zealand and Australia face long waits for their UK registration. Our hospitals and home care situations are crying out for them, but they have to wait. The Prime Minister wants to know what works; speeding up the process of registration will work. Perhaps the Minister can do something to oil the wheels of progress.
I am the founder and president of the Spinal Injuries Association. The association is most concerned when its members who have sustained injury to the spinal cord resulting in paralysis through trauma or illness, with loss of feeling and movement, do not get treatment in a spinal unit. I shall give an example of how important that is. A young man in his 20s broke his neck in a diving accident in Venezuela last year. Because there was no bed at the national spinal unit at Stoke Mandeville hospital for various reasons, he had to be admitted to Charing Cross general hospital, where he had a disastrous time and developed a serious pressure sore. Nobody evacuated his bowels, which is the procedure for paralysed patients. He caught MRSA from having a tracheostomy and was nearly injected in his neck rather than in his leg due to a language difficulty with a member of staff. He eventually went to the spinal unit at Stoke Mandeville, but, due to the pressure sore and MRSA, his rehabilitation has been held up and he has had to spend months in isolation.

407
That is why we need national standards. The Government should not shelve their responsibilities. They must ensure that patients who need it get the correct treatment whatever the conditions and wherever they live.
The gracious Speech says that there will be more patient participation in the National Health Service. That is welcome, but it will not work unless there is a clear, friendly, efficient point of contact. There must not be fragmentation. People who need help and others who are able to give advice need an efficient means of contact and a forum to be heard. CHCs have been good in some districts and ineffectual in others. Whatever we have in the future must be better. I hope that the Government will realise that voluntary organisations collect a great deal of information and represent many different groups that need to be taken into consideration. They need help and support.
The Royal National Institute for Deaf People says that there is a pressing need for an early, unequivocal commitment to and timetable for the national roll-out of the first wave of the modernising NHS hearing aid services project. Audiology services in the UK are facing a cash crisis that threatens to undermine recent embryonic improvements before they bear fruit. NHS audiology services are facing increasing demand from an ageing population, yet they are chronically under-resourced. Audiology services are being pushed to crisis point. Current funding is inadequate to keep up with basic demand. Many vital services for disabled people have been fragmented by contracting out. The wheelchair service is an example of that. Users of the health service need and appreciate a good, efficient service.
I hope that the Government will act on the recent damning report of the Audit Commission. With our excellent British engineering, we should be able to do much better so far as concerns disability. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, will agree on that point. This matter is important for the quality of life of individual people with disabilities and their helpers.
The health of the people is vital. With outbreaks of TB and food poisoning and dangerous hospital infections, I hope that the Government will keep infection control high on the agenda. With more power being given to local health staff, there is a danger that it may become fragmented. Can the Minister give an assurance that infection control will not be submerged at local competition level? It is far too important an issue to be neglected. There need to be adequate infection control personnel in hospitals and in the community. There should be a clear code of practice; the matter should not simply be left to individual trusts.
This debate embraces health and home affairs. It gives me the opportunity to bring to your Lordships some of the devastating problems facing many rural communities. Foot and mouth disease has caused many problems which will have far-reaching effects on the health of individuals and communities. There is isolation, heartbreak, anger, sadness,
408
uncertainty, anxiety—both financial and general—and disappointment, in some cases ending in suicide. Such insecurity may well lead to long-term depression.
Ill and disabled people, for fear of spreading the virus, have done without district nurses visiting them. Children and families have been traumatised by losing their animals. The endless worry continues as the virus still keeps appearing. The way in which some animals have been killed has appalled many people—both farmers and the public. There is a feeling of helplessness, and many people in badly hit areas or nearby feel that they are living in limbo. There is concern about toxic results from the disposal of millions of animals. I hope that the Department of Health will realise that there are health matters which need to be understood.
Sheep were being rounded up to be killed on the moor next to where I live. The son-in-law, aged 40, was helping the owner. He suddenly dropped down dead. That is just one of the many tragedies connected with this scourge. Foot and mouth brings a terrible added pressure on the countryside. Many people in tourism and farming are stretched to breaking point. The lack of knowledge about how the virus is spread is also an on-going worry. Can the virus live in a person's nose, as does MRSA? Perhaps the Minister will write to me about that. Is it not time that vaccination was tried out on controlled groups instead of relying on the horrific killing of valuable breeding stock?
As did the noble Lord, Lord Rea, this week I attended a conference hosted by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on the global problem of drug abuse. The world-wide problem of illegal drugs increases crime and the human suffering of families. Alcohol also continues to disrupt many people's lives, including those of young children. We heard of the huge problem of the smuggling of alcohol by bootlegging and of children as young as seven and eight drinking alcohol. On Monday, I heard of a new swizzle-stick which detects drinks which have been spiked with drugs. That could be a useful piece of detection equipment for clubs and bars.
There are so many young people in our young offender institutions. I hope that those young people will not be locked up for hours but will be given education and work to help them to get back into a useful routine for life outside.
It is frightening when society gets out of control. When one considers the recent disorder that took place at international cricket matches, is it not time that clear guidelines were given to the police? People who attended those recent matches said that the police did not seem to act when fire crackers were used and flying objects were let off and thrown on to the pitches. It appears wrong that families cannot feel safe and enjoy a day out together.
My husband attended the match at Headingley, Leeds. When I heard on the radio of the uncontrolled rushing on to the pitch, I was concerned. I would support making matches safe by controlling the people and by cutting alcohol consumption and the use of

409
dangerous objects. Is it not time to control the growing violence in the UK before it gets completely out of control?
6.6 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, the noble Baroness has ranged far and wide over the subject matter of this debate. When I first noticed the twinning of the two subjects of home affairs and the health service in one debate, I considered it to be a very bad idea. That was until I heard the deeply thoughtful speeches of my noble friend Lord Forsyth and the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws. Then I realised that the whole debate concerns human rights. I am sorry that the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, is no longer in her place because I wanted to pay tribute to her.
We are talking about human rights in relation to a better health service and justice. Both issues could not be more important. During the election campaign and since, discussion on the future of the National Health Service has centred, albeit somewhat vaguely, on the advantages that private sector ways and private sector money may or may not have for the NHS. Doubtless, once we study the Government's precise proposals on this matter, our thinking will focus more sharply. Indeed, we may move on to thinking in the direction indicated by my noble friend Lord Forsyth.
In the meantime, I want to suggest one thing to the Government. I believe that one single, simple lesson must now be learned from the private sector. If the National Health Service is ever to recover from its increasingly parlous state—a state which, as the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, illustrated, is causing a great deal of suffering, often to the weakest people—a sea change must come about so that the NHS can move, as the Government rightly wish, to providing the best healthcare in Europe.
Sometimes the blindingly obvious has to be restated, and I hope that I shall not be accused of being over-simplistic. But I believe that a sizeable number of your Lordships who have had responsibility for attempting to improve the effectiveness of public services—whether as central government Ministers or as local government councillors, as I myself was when I was in charge of a local education service, or, indeed, as civil servants or local government officers—know the type of special problems that arise in running a public service effectively and cost-effectively. Noble Lords who have also been involved in the private sector or in running a private sector business, large or small—my own was simply a farm—will know all too well the principal difference between the two experiences.
Clearly in both the public and private sectors a business has the same five requirements. It has to have agreed objectives that are known to everyone concerned, the right staff, a suitable management structure, and financial and material resources.
In the private sector, such matters are settled within the business. Shareholder interests are a consideration for some. Workforce and trade union negotiation is needed, and internal management opinions need to be
410
reconciled. However, ultimately—this is the important point—it is the people who are responsible for running the business who decide on the business's objectives, on the numbers, role and training of staff, on the style of management, on the resources that are required and where such resources will come from. All such decisions are made in the light of what management sees as the wishes of customers, on whose opinion of the whole thing everyone's livelihood depends. It is obvious that that is the situation in the private sector.
In the public sector—the National Health Service is an outstanding example—however much is theoretically devolved downwards and however much the customer is supposed to be taken into account and protected, it is in effect an elected politician who takes such decisions. Through legislation, funding deals or so-called "guidelines" politicians set the objectives, decide which staff can be afforded and how training establishments will be funded. Politicians decide on the structures and allocate resources according to their perception of needs. Of course, we all know how politicians behave—for one thing, they keep changing their minds. As someone wrote the other day,
"Politicians are like windsocks: they change direction with every changing political breeze, and in between they are limp'".
So it is in the National Health Service, except that there is not much limpness. Politicians keep legislating, issuing edicts, switching targets and altering structures. The effect on customers—patients or potential patients—is too often subsumed by the desire for a good overall impression. The effect on staff, most of whom went into the service in order to serve patients, is demotivating and may even cause despair.
It may be obvious but we should remind ourselves of the important fact that even when the public sector sincerely tries to devolve downwards, as the Government did in previous legislation when the so-called system of "earned autonomy" was invented under which NHS bodies that do well will be allowed to take more of their own decisions, it is still the Secretary of State who decides the criteria for doing well. His or her ambivalence about where the customer comes in and when public relations must take precedence are important in that regard. For the Secretary of State it is not only patients who form public opinion, but the unions, the Royal Colleges and the BMA, and it is sometimes puzzling for a Secretary of State to know which matters most.
There is an important difference between the private and public sectors—the public sector of necessity has a politician in charge, who has his own priorities. The private sector can make its own decisions and its priority has to be the customer. That almost always works better. The Government have to learn that lesson and explain it clearly to the public. I do not believe that most members of the public see the difference as clearly as noble Lords do.
It is important to remove the local units—I suppose that they are the trusts—within which we manage healthcare. We should so far as possible isolate them from politics and leave them to take their own decisions; that is what is done in the private sector. My noble friend Lord Forsyth discussed that in a

411
sophisticated manner, but I am sure that that, put very simply, is what the Government have to try to do. However we choose to do that, doing so will mean, among other things, that managers on the ground will be far more sensitive to clinical needs than many now are. That is one of the problems with successfully devolving healthcare downwards.
The system will have to ensure in some way that the money that is available follows the patient and that the patient has an element of choice. Unless that is done the value of treating patients will not be apparent to those providing that treatment and the right motivation will not be there. An appropriate element is present in the private sector but not in the public sector. I do not know how that should be done, but it is not my job to tell the Government how to do so. It will not be easy and it will take much courage, but the Government have the strength of their enormous parliamentary majority. They believe that the private sector has lessons to teach. Unless that fundamental sea change is brought about soon, no amount of extra money or ingenious mechanisms for funding or management will work.
6.16 p.m.
Baroness Northover: My Lords, the gracious Speech is short and perhaps to the point on health. The Government would, it seems, decentralise power and direct resources to NHS staff, give patients a greater influence in the running of the NHS and strengthen regulation of the health professions. But what does that actually mean? I am afraid that the phrase that immediately leapt to mind when I heard that commitment was "double-speak". Could it be that George Orwell's dictums, "War is peace" and "Freedom is slavery" might apply in this context?
The Government wish to decentralise power. Or do they? Have they suddenly had a change of heart? They want to put more power in the hands of NHS staff. Well, that makes a change. They have not done so up to now.
They wish to put more power in the hands of the patient. Or do they? Do they now regret trying to abolish community health councils and replacing them with some odd mishmash? I take it that we will now have the one-stop shops that are best suited to patients. Or will we? We await the legislation with interest.
What of the third provision, which was about increased regulation of the health professions? We certainly support measures that would ensure that health professionals are trained and work to the highest standards. There have indeed been cases in which that was clearly not so, and it has been exceedingly difficult to ensure that those closest in are dealing appropriately with lapses. The attitude of "There but for the grace of God go I" too often paralyses those who should be taking action. However, more regulation simply does not go to the heart of the problem. The NHS is too often at breaking point because it has too few staff and morale plummets under too much pressure.
412
We know from the largest ever survey of NHS staff—it was of 80,000 people—that the state of mind of those in the NHS is best summed up by the phrase, "Stressed out and over-worked". My colleague in another place, Paul Burstow, analysed the figures. Perhaps the Department of Health could not bring itself to do so. I have previously quoted the figures but they merit repetition in this context because of their importance. They are that 52 per cent of staff in the eastern region said there were insufficient resources to do the job properly, that 60 per cent of staff in the northern and Yorkshire region said that morale was not good and that 77 per cent of staff in the north-west region said that they were not coping with their workload. Why is that? Constant reorganisations—I see that more are coming down the track—long hours, low pay, long waiting lists and the number of dissatisfied patients are contributory factors. But the key factor, time and again, is simply lack of staff. If, as the Conservatives did, you cut training places for doctors and nurses, how can you be surprised at that outcome? The number of nurses recruited fell from 37,000 in 1983 to only 6,000 in 1995. We are paying the price for that now. So where does the gracious Speech address staff shortages and morale? I cannot see.
What else does it omit? There is no reference to mental health reform, even though that was apparently regarded by the Government as badly needed. Wide consultation has already taken place on that issue.
What of PFI? What an indictment of planning within the NHS that that is the only way in which large projects seem to be able to be taken forward, with future generations picking up the tab. What is intended in that regard?
What of care of the elderly? The National Plan stated that,
"from October 2001 … nursing care provided in nursing homes will be fully funded by the NHS".
And now, despite all that the Minister said in our recent debates on the Health and Social Care Bill, we hear that the Department of Health is no longer sure about that but is, predictably, not yet in a position to say whether it knows what it is doing on that matter. How does the Minister feel when he thinks of those older people who trusted what the Government said? Does he feel comfortable with his responsibility in that regard?
I turn now to what, for me, is the most astonishing omission from the gracious Speech; that is, that there is no Bill to ban tobacco advertising and promotion. Why not? I agree wholeheartedly with what the noble Lord, Lord Rea, said on that matter. If you cast your eye over history, it is public health measures which have made the real difference in lengthening lives and improving the quality of life. In 19th century Britain, it was sanitary reform that made the difference.
Professor Sir Richard Peto, of the Imperial Cancer Research Fund, speaking to the third global conference for cancer organisations yesterday stated that 1 billion people world-wide are likely to die this

413
century as a result of smoking. One hundred thousand people die each year in Britain of smoking-related diseases. So why do the Government delay?
I sat at a conference dinner the other day alongside a surgical professor from Northern Ireland who happens to advise the Department of Health. He said to me:
"Look around this room. One quarter of these people will die from cancer. And the one measure that can at a stroke reduce those numbers in the future is to reduce the incidence of smoking".
I do not claim for a tobacco advertising ban that it would right all wrongs. But think of impressionable children, 10 year-olds—and here, I must declare an interest because I have one—who watch every movement of a smoker with keen fascination. Or think of the 12 year-old—and I have one of those too—for whom experimentation may well include smoking. Insidious, ever-present tobacco advertising and promotion has already seeped into their minds and it spells acceptance of something which is so easy to take up and so very difficult to shed.
So what on earth did the Government's cancer czar, Professor Mike Richards, and his group of expert advisers have to say when that Bill, delayed in the last Parliament, was omitted from the gracious Speech? I hope that they made their feelings extremely plain.
We hear rumours that the Department of Health is not happy that that Bill is not before us today. Indeed, I trust that it is very unhappy and that what it has heard in this debate will strengthen in arm in whatever negotiations it is carrying on with whoever is resisting it, and that that Bill will be brought back to us without delay.
So what do we make of this gracious Speech? What is most not able in relation to health is what is missing or what is expressed in a somewhat surprising fashion. We expect swift action in those areas so far omitted, particularly as regards tobacco advertising. Meanwhile, we are surprised and delighted that the Government are committed to a devolved, decentralised health service in which patients have more power. We look forward with the keenest of interest to see in reality the rapid about-turn that the Government must perform in order to achieve that.
6.25 p.m.
Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate: My Lords, I start by joining in the congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, on his appointment to the Front Bench speaking on Home Office matters. I read a survey recently which stated that people's biggest fear was the fear of speaking in public. People's second biggest fear is the fear of dying. I am told that there is a third fear; that is, the fear of dying while speaking in public! I know that your Lordships will not allow that to happen to me this evening.
I am delighted to welcome the provisions of the gracious Speech. We hear a great deal in this place about the welfare of prisoners and prison reform. I respect those noble Lords who represent that particular lobby. It is a fine position from which to be coming from a humanitarian point of view,
414
particularly if it prevents reoffending. My noble friend Lady Kennedy talked about the civil liberties of this country being the cement in the foundations of democracy, and I agree with that. But I tend to think that the civil liberties of victims are equally as important as the civil liberties of those who commit criminal offences. However, I am very pleased that with regard to criminal justice, the Bill concentrates on putting victims first. Perhaps I should declare an interest as a patron of the North of England victims' Association.
I start with the proposal to abolish the double jeopardy rule. In 1997, as president of the Superintendents' Association of England and Wales, I addressed the national conference which was to welcome for the first time the new Home Secretary, the right honourable Jack Straw. In my speech in 1997, I called for the abolition of the archaic double jeopardy rule. We had been through a period in which a number of wrongful convictions had been identified for various reasons. Those miscarriages, quite rightly, had been corrected.
I recalled many years previously, long before I was a police officer, the case of a man called Stanley Setty who had been murdered. His dismembered body parts had been thrown from an aircraft into the North Sea. I recall graphically the trial of one Donald Hume for that grotesque murder. He was eventually acquitted.
As a young student of the criminal law at that time, I remember my horror at reading for the first time the gruesome details of the murder by none other than the self-confessed murderer himself, Donald Hume. He wrote his story in a Sunday tabloid—I think it was the Sunday Pictorial, and that shows how long ago it was—detailing the murder, how he chopped up the body and distributed the body parts from a light aircraft. I have little doubt that he earned quite a fat fee for his memoirs.
I was even more disturbed when I realised that for all his admissions, he could not be prosecuted because of that ancient common-law doctrine of autrefois acquit which, in essence, meant that an accused could not be put in jeopardy twice for the same offence. It was a rule which was created in ancient times when the odds were stacked against the criminal. For example, in those days, the accused could not even give evidence in his own defence. It seemed to my simple mind at that time that the interests of justice would be served by accepting the principle that a wrongful acquittal was just as much a miscarriage of justice as a wrongful conviction. Times change, and it seemed to me that with modern forensic evidence and other legal safeguards, the time had come for a change. Justice should reflect the public interest.
There have been more recent cases. In the North East, for example, a man was charged with the murder of his girlfriend, whose body was subsequently found by her mother hidden behind the bath. The man was acquitted and following an indiscreet admission of guilt when in prison, he was subsequently charged with giving false evidence at his own trial. He was sentenced

415
to six years in prison for perjury. Understandably, the victim's mother, as an innocent victim of the murder, has ceaselessly fought for justice.
We have to look no further than at the case of Stephen Lawrence to see that, as the law stands at present, an unwise private prosecution, followed by an acquittal, completely prevents a retrial of those against whom there may be a prima facie case of murder.
In 1997 my plea fell on deaf ears at the Home Office, but I am delighted that those at the Home Office have now seen the light. I hope that the provisions are retrospective so that past miscarriages of justice can be corrected. Justice demands nothing less.
Reform of the police is equally important. In the press there has been much discussion about the police service. Having been in it for 35 years I have some little knowledge of its culture and the way in which things are done. In 1997, for example, medical retirements in the Merseyside Constabulary were running at about 77 per cent, whereas in Kent the figure was 16 per cent. That cannot be right and must have something to do with the way in which sickness is managed in police forces. If some medical retirements are bogus, as is suggested, what about the doctors who are signing the medical certificates? However, do not throw out the baby with the bath water; let us not condemn the many for the actions of the few. Policing is a demanding and dangerous job and we must be sympathetic to those officers who are invalided out of the service in the line of duty.
Exemplary leadership in the police service is extremely important. Those at the top of the profession must practise what they preach. Often we do not require improved management, but improved leadership.
The police force also has people like Detective Superintendent Ray Mallon of Cleveland who has been suspended for three and a half years, originally on serious allegations, resulting in operation Lancet being set up. He has since been cleared of all criminal allegations, but he remains suspended pending disciplinary matters. It would have been the easiest thing in the world for Mr Mallon to walk away from the accusations, suffering perhaps from stress, and taking an enhanced medical pension, rather than face his accusers. He chose not to do that, which shows the difficulty of the situation. Ray Mallon is a prisoner of the police complaints system. In my view, he is a credit to the police service.
Such a case emphasises the need to reform and improve the police complaints system. It is a scandal that a senior officer, of high integrity, is suspended for four years on what now amounts to internal disciplinary matters. It follows that I am delighted that the complaints system will be made more accessible, more open and will not, I hope, allow the disgrace of innocent officers remaining suspended for such a long period. The police too are entitled to justice.
Time does not permit me to deal with other justice matters mentioned in the gracious Speech in great detail, suffice it to say that I welcome the commitment
416
to provide new support to the police in the fight against crime. That is absolutely critical. It is also critical that crime is not seen to pay. Therefore, I applaud wholeheartedly the proposals to attack the proceeds of crime in order to prevent the orchestrators of criminal activity from building up valuable nest eggs and salting them away without having to explain how they came by such ill-gotten gains. In my judgment, that provision will pay for itself from the proceeds that will be gained.
The public are entitled to a reasonable quality of life. Only today in an Underground station at Hyde Park Corner I had difficulty walking past two settees which were clearly the beds of two poor individuals who presumably slept there at night. In 2001 that is simply unacceptable. That is a social problem that needs dealing with. I despair. In this new century I believe that the police and social services should take action to deal with such difficulties. There must be better ways of dealing with people than allowing them to sleep in such places. Tourists were falling over them. It was quite disgraceful.
In my view the provisions of the gracious Speech are positive and ensure that society's crime-fighting capabilities are able to tackle crime in the 21st century. I commend the proposals to the House.
6.36 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Mackenzie, for his speech. It may be of comfort to him to know that the terrors of speechmaking are shared by us all, but medically speaking the time of greatest risk is when a speaker sits down as that is when the blood pressure really rises.
On 10th February 2001 the BMJ gave an analysis of the Alder Hey affair. In that article I came across the following phrase:
"Doctors must understand that many patients want to relate to health-care providers in a different way—they want to be partners in the decision making process".
A couple of weeks later two articles in the BMJ picked up on that theme. The first, concerned with global definitions of patient-centred care, stated:
"patient-centred clinical practice is a holistic concept in which components interact in a unique way in each patient-doctor encounter".
The second article was a report of a research study at Southampton University which concluded its results as follows:
"Patients in primary care strongly want a patient-centred approach with communication, partnership and health promotion. Doctors should be sensitive to patients who have a strong preference for patient-centredness".
I have no competency whatever to comment on the quality of that university's research, but I quote those articles to make a simple point. In each of them the word "partnership" has "hooray" status. In other words, apparently, "partnership" is the kind of concept about which we must all be automatically in favour. But neither article pointed out that if the partnership concept is taken seriously, it is an expensive process; not necessarily in terms of costs of medicines but in terms of time. Is there any reality at

417
all in the notion of partnership if it takes two weeks to get an appointment to see a GP and that appointment lasts for less than eight minutes?
I hope that all that I have said will not be construed as an attack on GPs. My point is the exact opposite. If "partnership", as a concept in medicine, is to have any validity at all it needs time and yet in my experience GPs do not have time. They are now pushed to their absolute limits. Partnership can work as a concept only if there are more GPs—and, yes, I know that more are promised—together with more nurses. But there is a moral question hidden away about whether or not it is right for a relatively wealthy nation to take medical staff from countries which are themselves frequently in desperate need.
Now let me gear the picture up a level. I have spoken so far about GP-patient relationships; they are, essentially, one-to-one. What will happen to the management of medical time if, as I believe is right, power is shifted from Whitehall to the NHS front-line and if that is combined with a political and social emphasis on patient power and on partnership? I venture to suggest that the stress load on management and on medical staff at a local level will be unendurable. We are asking NHS staff to offer more and more time to their patients and we are also asking them to offer more and more time to the efficient running of local services when time is already the factor in desperately short supply.
That kind of impossible demand could lead to serious breakdown in the service because two contradictory messages are being given. The first is, "Give your patients"—and for "patients" read "partners"—more time. The second is, "Give local management of healthcare more time". Meanwhile into the general stream of public discourse slide phrases such as "patient-centred partnership" and when that happens public expectations are raised to extraordinary heights.
Therefore, I suggest that we have some very powerful forces at work in our society. There is peer pressure within medicine to move to a partnership model of patient care; there is raised public expectation of partnership models; and there is a further demand that at a political level partnership must involve the devotion of more time to local management of healthcare delivery.
At the very centre of all these immense pressures are the clinical staff upon whose personal well being the entire system depends. It is a recipe for human and systemic breakdown. I do not need to add to the statistics about staff, so eloquently and forcefully outlined by the noble Baroness, Lady Northover. Those points were well made.
Can Her Majesty's Government assure us that the impossible demands will be carefully monitored? Can they also assure us that the care and well being of NHS staff are genuinely central to the Government's NHS policy? Without that, the anger, scepticism, sadness and despair, which currently exist among NHS staff, will continue to grow and the concept of partnership will be regarded as an idea which is entirely empty of meaning.
6.44 p.m.
Lord Dean of Harptree: My Lords, it is customary for a maiden speaker to be congratulated only by the noble Lord who follows. However, I believe that on this occasion an exception should be made. The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, made a highly effective contribution. He and I served together in another place for many years. We were on opposite sides of the fence of course, but I remember how highly effective he was both in Government and in Opposition. Therefore, I believe that I can make an exception to the normal rule and congratulate him on his appointment and on coming to this House.
I intend to refer to health, and I am pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, is one of the few Ministers still in the same post. We all respect his deep knowledge of the health service and we look forward to his reply at the end of the debate. It is also nice to see my noble friend Lord Howe on the Opposition Front Bench because his knowledge and experience of the health service are equally great.
I want to spend most of my time talking about the public-private partnership which is developing, particularly in relation to the health services. I decided to speak on the subject some weeks ago and had not then realised how topical and controversial it would be. Nor had I realised that on this very day the Prime Minister would be meeting trade union leaders to try to calm their fears about the way in which government policy is moving. I realise that it may be too early for the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, to comment on the Prime Minister's meeting, but I am sure that the House would be interested to hear any comments he can make.
During the years we have seen a steady development of partnerships. It has usually meant that the private sector has increased and the public sector has decreased. However, in some cases finance has remained with the public sector and delivery has passed to the private sector. An early example of the decrease in the public sector was the sale of council houses to sitting tenants at favourable terms. That was introduced many years ago by a Conservative government. It was at that time opposed by the Labour Party and by Labour councils but it proved to be an instant success. One saw the appearance of new front doors on council houses and other improvements being made. Many people who would otherwise be council tenants were able to have a pride in ownership.
We then saw the return of the nationalised industries to the private sector. That began in a modest way with the Conservative government in 1979 and soon became a flood. We found that many of the industries became profitable and began paying taxes rather than being a big drain on taxpayers. Of course there are problems in some areas, the railways being an obvious example, but they might have been in a worse mess had they still been nationalised.
I am delighted that the principle of public-private partnership is being extended to education and health. Those developments are most important and welcome. The principle is right but the details need a great deal

419
of working out. There are fears and anxieties, particularly among some of the Government's supporters in another place and in the trade unions.
As regards education, it is now recognised that the comprehensive system does not provide the variety and diversity which is required to meet the needs of all children. We welcome the new ways which are being developed in which the private sector and Church bodies can support schools and take over the running of bad schools. We also hear that there will be advanced specialist schools and that firms will be encouraged to sponsor new city academies. That diversity and choice are most welcome and should certainly raise the quality of our education service.
I turn to health services, where I believe the new initiative is most needed, although it is controversial. This matter was referred to by my noble friends Lord Forsyth and Lady Carnegy. When the health service started in the late 1940s it was thought that the cost would become static as soon as the backlog of ill health was dealt with. How wrong those forecasts proved to be. We now know that the demand for resources is insatiable, for which there are two or three obvious reasons. The first is the enormous advances in medical treatment and equipment and, therefore, the requirement for new hospitals and health centres to accommodate them. The second reason is that there are more elderly people in our population. It is a great blessing that people live longer, but inevitably it means more pressure on health and social services. Thirdly, people's demands for higher standards rise all the time.
Inevitably, those three features mean enormously increased pressures on the National Health Service and its staff. Some years ago when I was a governor of BUPA it was always said that the NHS and the private sector should be complementary, not competitive. That was anathema to the Labour government at the time, but the present Government take a different view. I warmly welcome the concordat which has been negotiated between the National Health Service and the private sector which allows the NHS, in appropriate circumstances, to use private hospitals where beds are available. I understand that in various parts of the country there are already good results as a result of this initiative. Waiting times for treatment, which are far more important than waiting lists, are coming down. That still preserves the cardinal principle of the National Health Service that treatment at the point of delivery is free. When someone goes into a private hospital it is the NHS, not the patient, which pays.
We also welcome the private finance initiative whereby private money goes into the building of hospitals. It must be clear by now that we need all health resources, both public and private, working together to improve the quality of services to patients. Of course there will be problems and controversies, but the principle is right and I hope that the Government will pursue it.
420
At the moment my party is not much good at winning elections, but it has persuaded the present Government to follow Tory policies in education and health and I welcome that.
6.54 p.m.
Lord Fitt: My Lords, first, I sincerely thank the noble Baroness, Lady Gale, for permitting me to speak at this time, particularly having listened to my noble friend sitting beside me. I have an appointment for a heart scan tomorrow morning. Having listened to my noble friend, I am slightly apprehensive about it. The reason that I take part in the debate is that in London at the beginning of the week of the general election I received a letter from a parent in Belfast who explained that her small daughter was suffering from juvenile arthritis. What she said in the letter really affected me. I jumped on a plane next morning and met the parent. Having spoken to her, I became personally and passionately involved in an issue that had never affected me throughout the whole of my political life.
I found out that there was such a thing as juvenile arthritis which can affect anyone from the age of three right throughout his or her lifetime. The pain and distress that those affected must endure are unbelievable. Since speaking to the mother I have become involved. I rushed out to phone the Minister of Health in the Northern Ireland Parliament who is a member of Sinn Fein. It is well known from the years that I have been in your Lordships' House that politically I do not have anything to do with Sinn Fein. However, I let my misgivings go because I wanted to speak to the Minister about the terrible case about which I had just heard. She was on and off the phone or somewhere else. Perhaps she did not want to speak to me as I am an opponent of her political party. My attitude in this case was determined by humanity, not politics.
I then became more involved and rang a colleague of the Minister to see whether I could arrange a meeting to discuss the particular case. Again, the individual was not available. I returned to Stormont. The Minister was again very busy but I met her private secretary. I explained the case in which I had become so involved.
I contacted the hospital treating the patient. What I found out, and now illustrate, is in total contradiction to every idea of the National Health Service as we know it. It states—I believe that it has been said here as well—that it awaits a report from the National Institute for Clinical Excellence to see the effects of the new drug. There are now two new drugs available in England and the Republic of Ireland: one is Etanercept and the other is Infliximab. These drugs, which produce absolutely no side-effects, have been available in the United States for the past five years. Consultants who are closely involved in the treatment of this terrible condition have confirmed to me that those drugs have absolutely no side-effects. They are quite confident that some time in October or November of this year NICE will conclude that this drug has no serious side-effects.

421
The reason this drug has not been used in Northern Ireland as in other parts of the United Kingdom is that it is expensive: the cost per year is between £6,000 and £7,000. If one sees as I have the terrible consequences of this disease, that would be a very small price to pay to alleviate the suffering. There are now 75 cases in Musgrave Park. Every day, every hour and every minute they wait for the consultant to say that the drug can be made available to ease pain, but they have been told that nothing can be done until NICE makes its report some time later this year.
Today I received a telephone call from a hospital in Belfast about a female patient whose hands are twisted very badly and who is suffering immense, unbearable pain. She told her doctor that she could bear it no longer and her family would get together to see if they could raise the finance to enable her to have the new drug. The consultant to whom I have spoken says that undoubtedly if this patient is given the drug it will help deal with the complaint.
I heard of another young man aged 21 or 22 who worked with computers. He developed arthritis. He was put on a waiting list and was told that it would be a year before he could receive any treatment. His family went around and collected £6,000 among themselves. The drug was given to the young boy. There was a great improvement. I shall not try to say that it was a miraculous cure, but he is back working now because he received that drug.
The position in Northern Ireland is that there are 75 cases of people suffering cruelly because the Government will not prescribe this drug. The reason the Government will not prescribe the drug is because of its cost. I know that in England its prescription depends on where one lives—postcode medicine. If one lives in a certain place one is permitted to have the drug; if one lives in another postcode one is not.
I agree with everything said by the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth. But money should not be the determining factor when people are suffering from such a grievous illness.
I understand that in the Republic of Ireland this drug is readily available. Indeed, I have heard that it is written into the Irish constitution that if one is in need of it, one cannot be prevented from having it.
Yesterday, in answer to a Question in another place, the Minister said:
"There has been a postcode lottery in these big services—mental health and so forth—and we must try to solve that. In the national health service, people want to know that they will receive treatment according to their needs".—[Official Report, Commons, 26/6/01; col. 499.]
The cause of the disease is not known. It is believed to be 25 per cent inherited and 75 per cent acquired. But these two new drugs are having a dramatic effect on easing the pain and perhaps leading to its eradication. If there is a National Health Service, it should be able to prescribe these drugs to do away with the pain. That is why I am still here today.
422
The cost of £7,000 or £8,000 may sound very high, but the drug has dramatic effects. One noble Lord said that the National Health Service in this country was one of the great beacon lights of our democracy. The clinical experts, the local authorities a rid the health service boards will determine whether the requisite finance will be given in order to give a certain drug to any given patient. The people who know more than the local authorities are the consultants, the doctors and the nurses who tend to these people in hospital: some as in-patients and others as out-patients. I have spoken to them. They have issued documentation which states that they are quite certain that if there is adequate finance they will do everything possible to eradicate this terrible disease.
I am here today to try to alert the Government, and in particular to speak of those 75 people who are lying in hospital beds in Northern Ireland, waiting desperately for the consultant to come and say, "The funding has now been agreed to permit you to have this drug".
I thought that this was a disease that came with age. I did not realise that there was such a thing as juvenile rheumatoid arthritis. I now know. The reason I know is because of devolution. The Minister of Health in Northern Ireland may be working to a budget. She may say that there are other authorities, that the state of Northern Ireland under devolution does not have the wherewithal and the finance to pay for the acquisition of this drug. There is nothing more important in Northern Ireland. There is nothing that should be given more priority than the health of the people who are suffering so dreadfully there.
I hope the Minister will make inquiries as to what is happening in Northern Ireland and whether it needs more funding. This is a British Exchequer grant which is given to Northern Ireland under whatever existing financial formula. It is in effect the British Government, the British Exchequer, which will pay for the implementation of this drug to be given in Northern Ireland. I urge the Minister to impress upon the Northern Ireland executive the necessity of granting financial aid to try and cope with this terrible disease.
The Sinn Fein Minister in Northern Ireland now has the reins of power in her hands. I can imagine that the Sinn Fein party before it was in government would have spoken with the same passion with which I am speaking. But now that it is in government it must see the reality and the extent of the cost. I repeat, something should be done immediately about the 75 people who are in this particular hospital in Belfast.
I recently read a letter in the Northern Ireland press which said that an answer was received from the Minister of Health which stated:
"Well, we have spent all the money that we have in our health budget this year and you will have to wait until we go into a new financial year".
That is very sad for the people waiting to see if they can get this drug. I appeal to the Minister to see what can be done to make certain that people who need this treatment are given it.
7.7 p.m.
Lord Harris of High Cross: My Lords, I was very much cheered up at the outset of this afternoon's debate to hear from the engaging maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, that the Government occasionally check out whether earlier Acts of Parliament have had the desired effects. I thought that comparing the unchecked flood of legislation year in year out with the, should I say, "patchy performance" must be a rather disillusioning task, although I would very much like to offer my services in the assessment of some parts of legislation.
I shall take up where my former student at St Andrew's, the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, left off. His clarity, candour and courage were all that I might have anticipated. I shall try to do justice to the theme, although perhaps at somewhat shorter length.
I personally was very disappointed with the grand debate on the NHS during the election campaign. For me, as I watched the television story unfold, it seemed like a twist on the old story of the emperor who had no clothes with a difference. While the three party leaders invited us constantly to admire the fine raiment of this institution, the nurses, the GPs, the consultants and many patients simultaneously blurted out that in practice much of it is in tatters.
I gave up collecting cuttings, but one single month's supply on the health service included the following headlines: "NHS catastrophe in Kent hospitals", "Ministers try to head off NHS mutiny", "Hospital waiting lists rise", "Hospitals move waiting list goalposts", "Milburn abandons waiting list targets", "Labour at war with BBC over NHS expose", "GPs threaten to quit over workload", "Consultants may split with NHS", and "Nurse's leader condemns third world health service". That is not Tory Party propaganda.
It is not easy, even from the Cross Benches, to launch into a full-hearted denunciation of the concept of the National Health Service. I have long thought that the whole of the argument about it being the envy of the world, although nowhere in the world endeavours to copy it, was a spoof, if not a fraud. Of course, many families and individuals pay heartfelt tribute to the personal debt they owe to the National Health Service. But what has mostly saved lives, cured ills and eased pains is the miracle advances in drug therapy by profit-making multi-national companies, about which we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, and the developments in diagnostic and surgical practices through competitive innovation by dedicated professionals. The unique contribution of politicians of all parties over the past half century has been to hold back progress by confining investment in the health service to finance that could be raised through taxation, thereby suppressing choice, prolonging illness and even allowing premature deaths.
This harsh verdict is not based on hindsight. As the founding General Director at the Institute of Economic Affairs, I am proud to quote from one of our very earliest Hobart Papers, published in 1961. It was written by a young, physically handicapped,
424
though intellectually gifted, lecturer at Keele named Dr Dennis Lees, who later became professor at Nottingham University. The text merits extensive quotation. I shall content myself with a single paragraph. The paper is entitled Health Through Choice, but it is now, alas, out of print. He said:
"The fundamental weaknesses of the NHS are the dominance of political decisions, the absence of built-in forces making for improvement and the removal of the test of the market. These defects bring dangers for the quality of medical care that cannot be removed without far-reaching reform"
He went on to make some tentative, hesitant proposals for improvement. I shall not go into those in detail. He said:
"My verdict would be that a monolithic structure financed by taxation is ill-suited to a service in which the personal element is so strong, in which rapid advances in knowledge require flexibility and freedom to experiment, and for which consumer demand can be expected to increase with growing prosperity"
His recommendations included diminishing the role of political decisions and enlarging consumer choice by moving away from taxation and free services towards private insurance and fees, but always allowing generous direct assistance for those who cannot maintain themselves.
Instead of arguing their case, the defenders of the NHS have gone on claiming the moral superiority of a system that attaches more importance to services being described as "free" than to the fact that the services are not actually available. That moral smokescreen has for too long paralysed fruitful debate on alternatives to the elephantine, politically mismanaged and manipulated monopoly of the NHS. The growth in the private health sector is itself a measure of the failure of the NHS, since millions elect to pay twice over—once in taxes for the service they do not use and again for insurance out of their taxed income.
The easiest way to dispose of this kind of criticism is to dismiss it as the ravings of a right-wing lackey of capitalism in its advanced stages. That strikes the right intellectual note for some of the participants. But that will no longer do. All of those unpriced expectations are now coming home to roost and for reasons quietly anticipated by some socialists of unquestioned credentials.
I have long treasured a second IEA paper entitled Paying for the Social Services. It was written in 1968 by Douglas Houghton, who became a Labour Peer and will be remembered in this House as a wise old bird with the courage of his convictions. In that paper, written more than 30 years ago, there appears the following luminous passage:
"What is in doubt is whether we in Britain will ever give medicine the priority given to it in some other countries (and America is only one example) so long as it is financed almost wholly out of taxation"
It continues:
"While people would be willing to pay for better services for themselves, they may not be willing to pay more in taxes as a kind of insurance premium which may bear no relation to the services actually received"
That is my second witness. But, my Lords, I have further delights for you.

425
Lest those be thought the musings of a maverick, I shall now quote one of the great intellectual pillars of Harold Wilson's Labour Party, Mr Richard Crossman. In the introduction to his now long-forgotten panacea of National Superannuation in 1969, he wrote:
"People are prepared to subscribe more in a contribution for their own personal or family security than they ever would be willing to pay in taxation devoted to a wider variety of different purposes"
Contrast that clear insight with that of the Labour chairman of the parliamentary Health Select Committee, talking in 1999 of the private sector in language as crude as his intellectual processes. He said:
"I hate the bastards and you can quote me"
Last year, the Minister himself, Mr Milburn, was quoted in the Hospital Doctor as describing private practice by consultants as,
"one of the 7 deadly sins"
The logical consequence of the all-party collusion on a tax-financed National Health Service, in contrast with superior European systems, has been to prevent medical care becoming one of the major growth sectors of the economy to match homes, holidays, entertainment and sport, which competitive markets have transformed with rising standards of living. In welfare, the choice is not public versus private but monopoly versus competition. Competition alone can harness private health insurance, mutual aid, direct payment, vouchers, savings, family support, voluntary institutions, philanthropy and all the resources of civil society, with generous state aid for the declining minority unable to help themselves.
It was political monopoly that abolished matrons, introduced mixed-sex wards, manipulated waiting lists and surgical priorities and issued orders to clean up hospitals in areas to which the public had access. A monolithic state monopoly can never cater sensitively for differing and developing personal preferences. I describe it as essentially a Napoleonic, even totalitarian concept best confined to the Armed Forces, the police, the fire service and street lighting, where choice between competing suppliers is less feasible.
Dare I add, after the outbursts which have come from the Liberal Democrat Back Benches, that state dictation is especially inappropriate from a party that now attracts fewer supporters than there are adult smokers?
7.20 p.m.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, like many other noble Lords who have already spoken in the debate, I was particularly impressed by the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, not only for the fluidity, clarity and brevity with which he addressed such a substantial subject, but also because he had the courage to address what is becoming an ever more important issue; that is, the sheer volume of legislation which is emerging from his department.
I draw particular attention to this matter, not to present an argument about how we use our time in Parliament—although the noble Lord, Lord Bassam,
426
might be interested to learn that, according to the House of Lords Information Office, over the period of the last Parliament we spent 448¾ hours discussing Home Office legislation alone (if that does not put off the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, from his present enablement and new position, I do not know what will)—but to present a far more serious issue. We need to look at the validity with which the Home Office programme can be treated, given that it produces so much legislation, so much of which is then rapidly overtaken by subsequent legislation.
The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, drew attention to the efforts being made within his department to examine the efficacy of previous measures that have been brought forward. I am sure that in due course the House will be interested to hear much more about this, because there is certainly a fear that, as the statute book becomes ever more complex with each Queen's Speech, the question remains unanswered as to whether the system has become any more effective at controlling crime—its primary purpose.
In the last Parliament, some 30 Bills out of a total of 154 government Bills were associated with the Home Office. The Crime and Disorder Act formed an important part of the Government's programme over the last Parliament. It contained a range of provisions which were intended to tackle youth crime and antisocial behaviour. But how effective have those measures been? I understand that, according to figures published last September, by that stage no child curfew orders had ever been applied for and that only just over 100 anti-social behaviour orders had been successfully applied for. Since that time the figures may well have changed, but surely there is a relevant and valid contrast to be made between the enormous resources—parliamentary, official, agency, police and others—which have been poured into those measures with the meagre results which they have brought thus far.
The 1998 Act also established crime and disorder reduction partnerships. Again, the objectives of those schemes were admirable, but where are the results and what efforts have been made to attempt to quantify them?
The Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 has only recently been introduced, but again a huge variety of measures were introduced relating to police powers and the ability to deal with offences, such as issuing on-the-spot fines for disorderly behaviour and the extension of the curfew scheme to which I have already referred—despite the lack of evidence on the results of the original scheme.
Of course reference has also been made to the Football (Disorder) Act. The Act could be considered as one of those referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, as having popped up "out of the blue". Indeed, at Question Time only yesterday or the day before, calls were made for additional legislation and measures to be introduced to cope with disorder at cricket matches. If we continue on this path, we shall reach an absurd point. I hope that we shall not see a rugby union disorder Bill, a rugby league disorder Bill

427
or a five-a-side rugby disorder Bill. There will come a point at which we shall have to rely on the statutes already in place and apply those rather more effectively.
Beyond pure criminal justice, we also passed the Private Security Industry Act which, while although a great deal of support was expressed for its original aims, was extremely cumbersome and will bring literally hundreds of thousands of people under a brand new regulatory regime. We hope that it will improve standards in that industry and that, as a consequence, there will be a reduction in crime. However, it will need to be closely monitored.
The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, produced some statistics on the fall in the level of crime. However, statistics can tell different stories. Certainly I have some statistics available which tell a rather different story as regards the overall level of crime. Notwithstanding that, it is difficult to draw specific conclusions from the crime statistics which we have at our disposal: have the measures which we have discussed been efficient at addressing their principal purpose?
There is a very real sense that an attitude has been adopted that one can legislate against crime. But surely the legislative framework is only one part of the matrix of maintaining law and order. Are we not in danger of overloading the police and the courts with an ever-thicker statute book, which I believe has now moved well to the wrong side of the diminishing returns curve?
Under this and under previous administrations we have seen scores of special initiatives, many of which have been developed in great haste as a response to certain current events, but very few of which have been demonstrated to work well over a period of time. I should be interested to know how many additional criminal offences were created over the course of the last Parliament. I do not expect the Minister who is to respond to our debate to have those figures tucked in his inside pocket, but it would be interesting to know in due course not only the exact figure, but also whether that figure easily can be found. Is anyone keeping a tally of what I think is an important issue?
Tough but impractical legislation should not be used as a smokescreen to divert attention away from poor execution and resourcing, although there is a temptation to do just that. All of the legislation which has been dreamt up will not make up for the fact that, for example, there has been a decline in the number of policemen. Surely it is a priority to concentrate on improving delivery and performance.
Having said that, clearly there are areas where the Government can and should make a strong case for introducing fresh legislation to enhance that delivery. An example of that might well be the police reform Bill. It is clear that the organisation of our police forces in this country is something of an archaic legacy from ancient times. A great deal could be done to remove the structural obstacles and thus to enhance efficiency.
428
While on the subject of the police, I feel strongly that it is up to the Government to demonstrate their overt support for the police and to draw attention to their extraordinary work. Only then will public confidence in our police forces be enhanced. All too often we see a tendency for Ministers to associate themselves with the police when things are going well, but under difficult circumstances and in troubled times there has also been a tendency for the police to be allowed to hang out to dry without receiving necessary government support.
The credibility of the Home Office measures which have been brought forward is diminished by the lack of a strategic framework into which they could fit, as well as by the sheer volume of the legislation. A great deal of time in the last Session was taken up by redrafting measures such as the ill thought-out Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act. The reintroduction of the hunting Bill merely reinforces my view that the Government do themselves no favours by diverting attention from the important issues, which undoubtedly they are trying to address, given the programme of Home Office legislation brought forward in the gracious Speech.
7.29 p.m.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I, too, should like to welcome the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, to his hot seat, even if at present he is not occupying it. At the same time I should like to express my—I am not sure what is the most apt sentiment—gratitude, in a sense, to the noble Lord, Lord Bassam. Noble Lords on these Benches did doughty battle with him night after night. It is odd how, as a result, one then develops symbiotic relationships with those with whom one locks horns in that way. I like to think that we always conducted a sensible and respectful engagement. I am sure that it will be the same with the noble Lord, Lord Rooker.
Perhaps I may repeat briefly a comment I made about the last Queen's Speech. I must express a certain frustration that the debates on health and home affairs are hitched together, even though they have nothing whatever to do with one another. It seems to be an unnecessary problem for all concerned and detracts from focus in debate. I am afraid that I do not buy the Government's explanation that it would increase government time on the Front Benches and leave less time for those on the Back Benches.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to intervene. I know that in the usual channels the Government have suggested ways of reforming the manner in which we undertake these debates. Sadly, agreement was not reached.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I am grateful for the Minister's intervention.
I wish to say a few words, first, about the Football (Disorder) Act, and then, more importantly, about the prospective change in the court structure by the interposition of an intermediate tier of courts. I shall

429
say finally a word about the context within which criminal law reform takes place. I identify very closely with most, if not all, of what the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, said on this point.
The Football (Disorder) Act 2000 was heavily contested at the time and went through at the end of a parliamentary Session. I believe that anyone with an open mind would accept that it is a draconian piece of legislation in comparison with anything that we have ever put on the statute book before. There was a rare coalition of opposition to the Act. We on these Benches will be no more keen to see this Act renewed permanently than we were to see it introduced with its sunset clause.
The report on the workings of the Act—which is not a model of clarity—appears to indicate that in the year and a bit since the Act came into effect, only 44 orders have been issued under its provisions. I take issue with the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, when he justifies the existence of the legislation on the ground that,
"it demonstrates that we take this issue seriously",
and, secondly, that it is "targeted". In my opinion, the words,
"it demonstrates that we take this issue seriously",
in this instance, gives the game away in terms of the real nature of the Football (Disorder) Act. It was very much a public relations measure—populist legislation. It has not been much used and is not likely to be much used.
As for it being "targeted", in my book that is another word for it being extraordinarily arbitrary in the way it is used. Given the extremely low hurdles that need to be leapt in order for magistrates to make a banning order, no one can tell me that the numbers to whom this Act could apply would not run into hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of citizens.
One does not need to prove a conviction for any offence of violence or disorder. Indeed, John Prescott may count himself lucky that he has not been a recipient of one of these orders. One needs to engage only in a gesture or a word which is considered to be insulting to trigger this measure—a word or gesture that is not unlawful, has never been unlawful and is never likely to be unlawful. In our view, this measure should be consigned to where it belongs.
I turn to the issue of a new tier of courts and, most importantly, the impact of such an introduction on the lay magistracy. The Queen's Speech and the new Home Secretary's remarks on this aspect of the forthcoming legislation were somewhat gnomic and sparse. One needs to read the Labour manifesto in order to understand what is at stake. The manifesto states:
"The current system, split between Magistrates and Crown Courts, needs reform"
I pause to note that no justification for this assertion is given. It continues:
"A unified system, including lower or intermediate tiers of court, offers simplicity and flexibility".
Again, I cannot resist asking: how on earth can the creation of a brand new tier of justice make for simplicity?
430
The manifesto and the Queen's Speech refer to the forthcoming report of Lord Justice Auld. Last October, Lord Justice Auld issued a progress report—which is the latest intelligence we have from him—in which he stated that there has been widespread support for the establishment of an intermediate tier of jurisdiction to deal with some of the less serious offences currently categorised as "either way" cases. As he put it,
"It has been suggested that this might take the form of a District Judge"—
formerly known as a stipendiary—
"sitting with two lay Magistrates"
The report continues:
"Whether or not Lord Justice Auld recommends such an intermediate tier, he is considering proposals",
and so on.
It is common ground on these Benches that anything which reduces the power and authority of lay justices will be viewed with extreme scepticism. We believe that the introduction of this intermediate tier may have as one of its ulterior purposes an escape from the cul-de-sac into which the Government have driven themselves over the question of a reduction in the right to jury trial.
Secondly, it surely stands to reason that if there is to be an intermediate tier it will suck cases down from the Crown Court and it will suck more serious cases up from the magistrates' courts. The impact of that over time will, in our view, be seriously damaging to the prospects of survival of the magistrates' courts. Let there be no mistake, there is—how shall I put it—a kind of hidden hum which emanates, year on year, from the Home Office which is antipathetic to lay justices as such. Although the Lord Chancellor has made repeated unequivocal assertions as to his support for lay magistrates, a battle is going on behind closed doors. I repeat, we are absolutely committed to lay justices as the very foundation of justice in this country.
Perhaps I may briefly refer to the report of a senior lecturer at Sussex University, Richard Vogler, on the potential impact of the intermediate tier of a judge and two lay justices. He states:
"Unfortunately, the evidence from other jurisdictions is that the functional role of the lay participants in a mixed bench is virtually nil…The professional judges naturally dominate the conduct of the trial and set the legal framework of decision-making…From Germany, for example, there is overwhelming empirical evidence"—
and Germany has a similar two and one arrangement—
"that their [the lay justices'] role is essentially passive and their influence negligible"
He concludes:
"The mixed panel is popular with professional judiciaries precisely because it empowers them at the expense of genuine popular participation …evidence from other jurisdictions suggests clearly that Lord Auld's interim proposals"—
in fact they are not proposals; Lord Justice Auld has not yet got as far as making proposals—
"are fraught with potential dangers and may represent a significant step away from democratic trial process"

431
I come back to the point that, together with juries, lay justices are the only part of our complex legal system that can reasonably be called justice of the people, by the people, for the people. We favour them precisely because they are deeply rooted in the public mind and in their communities. Lay justices and the magistrates' courts are among the few parts of the modern state that the so-called ordinary citizen understands. They have a high degree of public confidence. The number of complaints about them is astonishingly small in view of the fact that they deal with 95 or 96 per cent of all criminal cases.
They are ruggedly independent. We have a certain suspicion on these Benches that the endless desire of central government to have more and more control over the affairs of our society works against these individuals, who take no pay from the state, depend not on the state and are largely self-organising in their areas. In saying that, I make no disparagement of district judges.
Whatever comes out of the Government's consideration of the Auld report—and we hope that there will be an in-depth consultation with the public—we will be extraordinarily sceptical about any move to reduce the powers of lay justices, either directly or indirectly.
Finally, perhaps I may say a word about the context within which I believe criminal law reform should be undertaken at this time. We all, I have no doubt, consider that the turn-out at the general election earlier this month was truly disastrous. I do not think that any of us should try to "spin" it away. By some considerable degree, it was the worst ever turn-out since the introduction of universal franchise in this country. As the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, made clear yesterday on the "Today" programme, comparisons with the 1918 election are false. However difficult it may be, we must attempt to understand why under six in 10 of our fellow citizens thought it worth while to cast that precious vote.
The underlying causes are elusive and contestable— and unprovable. But I am certain of one thing: in the oft-repeated refrain of this Government that they want to be "tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime", being tough on the causes of crime is a superficial exercise unless it reaches the underlying causes of public disaffection with the state and with most of its manifestations.
I should like to think that we in this House have a better opportunity than do our colleagues and superiors down the corridor to stand back and examine such issues as the rampant materialism of our society, which has as its counterpart the collapse of moral idealism; the rampant greed which I believe seriously disfigures our society, with its counterpart, the collapse of any idea of fairness of reward; the obsessive competitiveness of our society, which is not confined to the economy, and which has as its counterpart a collapse of the balance between public and private affairs and between personal and civic affairs. These and other issues undermine virtuous
432
values: they undermine co-operation and sharing, fairness and moderation, civic pride, public interest and altruism. Anyone who thinks that that has no impact on all the things that we "sweat over" in terms of the level and viciousness of criminality is simply not facing the truth about the society of which, in a way, we in this place are the head.
I hope that, difficult though it may be, we shall try to get at these intractable facts and that we shall attempt to build them into the way in which we deal with legislation. I hope that we shall realise that legislation is often counter-productive of the very purposes for which it is enacted. I hope that we shall understand that the seedbed of our society is being soured and leeched of goodness. However good are the seeds of legislation that we plant in it, however copious are the fertilisers that we bring to it in the form of government grants, projects and initiatives, however much we spread insecticides to choke off criminality, all of that will be useless if the underlying seedbed is incapable of taking all that.
I wish the Government wisdom in the legislation that they bring forward. They can be sure that we shall treat it with rigorous but, I hope, public-spirited criticism.
7.44 p.m.
Lord Harrison: My Lords, I, too, welcome the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, to this House. He has proved himself no rookie in his first appearance here.
In the general election there were four categories of citizens who were deprived of the vote: those of us who were detained at Her Majesty's pleasure here in the House of Lords, those in prison, and those in Bedlam—sometimes all one and the same place; and, of course, children.
I do not advocate extending suffrage to children under 18. I am reminding your Lordships that in all senses of the phrase, "There are no votes in children". As a result, too few politicians speak up on their behalf. But children should not have to wait for their voices to break for their voices to be heard. In all deliberations, children should be seen and heard. So today, on my daughter Sara's 16th birthday, I shall concentrate my remarks on children, and on how their welfare may be affected by the content of the gracious Speech. What more appropriate venue is there in which to speak about children than in the House of Lords—for some, the home of our second childhood?
I warmly welcome the gracious Speech, which builds on the Government's substantial record of achievement in the past four years of strengthening the protection and welfare of children in the United Kingdom. The reintroduction of the adoption and children Bill will command widespread support. It has the personal imprimatur of the Prime Minister. However, I hope that the Government, in fleshing out the Bill, will be equally mindful of the advantages of long-term foster care, which can so often be more appropriate for older children. Greater use, too, of family group conferences can markedly increase the opportunities of successfully placing children within

433
the fold of their extended families. I speak feelingly on this matter, for I am eternally grateful to my brother-in-law's parents for informally fostering me some 40 years ago at a time when my immediate family suffered temporary setbacks. In supporting the adoption and children Bill, perhaps I may put in a special plea for continuing training for adoption staff, both on their social work courses and during their employment by local authorities.
As a council member of the NSPCC, I welcome the Government's ambition to tackle the problem of highly dangerous sex offenders through the judicious use of indeterminate sentences for the guilty. Although it goes against the grain to detain our fellow citizens on such a basis, recognition that some seven in every 1,000 men have been convicted of at least one sexual offence against a child necessarily invokes the higher imperative of ensuring our children's protection against the gross invasion of the civil liberties of such offenders.
Apropos children's commissions, I am grateful for the written reply from my noble friend Lord Hunt on 27th February indicating that the Government are watching closely the inception of a Children's Commissioner in Wales to see whether such a departure would be feasible in England. I sincerely hope so.
Less encouraging is the omission from the gracious Speech of proposals to reform the law to give children the same legal right of protection from assault as that currently enjoyed by adults. For the past decade Britain has subscribed to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. It is time that we put our law where our mouths are and banned physical punishment, as set out in Article 19 of the convention. It is time to break the dispiriting cycle of violence begetting violence within the family.
The other day, I could barely restrain myself from intervening when I saw a clearly inadequate parent gratuitously, indeed metronomically, thrash her child in the street for seemingly the umpteenth time. That demonstration of the futility of the law of diminishing returns in family discipline was tragic fare for us as onlookers. There was nothing comical, however, about this bashed street kid, who in turn, a generation from now, will doubtless be found bashing her progeny in the street unless we act now. Sometimes, I think that there is a lot to be said for the nanny state.
Urgent, too, in the dawn of this new Government, is the need for a systematic review of all child deaths in the United Kingdom, particularly those attributable to abuse and neglect. We need to develop a better snapshot and definition of such child deaths. The reported rate of two fatalities a week may well be an underestimate, but we just do not know. We sorely need a national strategy for reducing such child deaths. Harmonising the collection of relevant data by local authorities would be a good first step. Can my noble friend the Minister indicate whether the Government would be sympathetic to the idea of consulting all interested parties in this matter through a Green Paper or a White Paper to help reduce the incidence of these needless deaths?
434
I hope, too, that the Government will not be too tardy in re-introducing the tobacco advertising Bill. This is a measure that will be proportionately more beneficial for children than for adults.
Perhaps I may now invade the territory of the Department for Education and Skills and make a plea for more and better school-based welfare services for children. As a former member of Cheshire County Council's education committee, I was made fully aware of the debilitating problem of bullying and intimidation which lies like a dead weight across the path of children seeking to pull themselves up by their bootstraps to gain freedom through education. I believe that there is a powerful case for boosting normal pastoral care by improved school-based welfare services. Do the Government agree"
All this may seem trivial when set against the staggering figure of 40 million infant deaths that are reported each year worldwide, as a result of war, famine, malnutrition, disease, natural disasters and drought. My former European Parliament colleague, Glenys Kinnock, rightly reminds us of that depressing statistic. But here, too, I commend the last Government's ambition to help eliminate child poverty in the world of the 21st century. The collaboration between Chancellor Brown and Clare Short of DfID was exemplary.
I should like to make a special plea for children in our own global backyard—Europe. I proudly sport today the tie of the British EU presidency of 1997, the design of which was specially commissioned by the British Government from children working together throughout the European Union. The tie illuminates the importance of children growing up in Europe, but the opportunities and dangers presented to our young people arising from the development of the single market, and from European Union enlargement, have been slenderly calibrated. On a future occasion I hope to enlarge upon this subject, especially about the four freedoms of the single European market—the free movement of goods, services, people and capital—each of which, individually, impacts unexpectedly on children and poses new challenges to the Government, who wish to ensure the protection of children in a deepening and widening Europe.
Yesterday's tragic news of a Portuguese mother, resident in Switzerland and arrested for a minor theft, whose 18 month-old child perished alone and abandoned in the parental flat following a breakdown of communication in social services, all too piteously illustrates the danger to children of a Europe on the move. All of us in Europe must redouble our efforts to ensure that, in opening up Europe, we do not leave children and their families exposed and vulnerable. In building a better Britain, as this Queen's Speech surely does, let us do so in partnership with our friends and families in Europe. For our children's sake, we fight a common cause.
7.54 p.m.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I freely admit to being a grandfather, but I hope that I am not quite yet

435
beginning to enter my second childhood. More seriously, however, I regret that there is much that is wrong in British prisons. This has come out clearly from a number of earlier speeches. The problems have also been well described in the reports of the inspectors-general of prisons, both on individual prisons and in thematic studies covering, for example, women or young people, or suicides in prisons. Against that difficult background, requiring immediate and sustained government action, I should like to speak about two very positive initiatives. I hope that they will influence the whole prison system.
The first is a voluntary and charitable initiative called "Fine Cell Work", which enables prisoners to do embroidery, needlework and quilting. Because these crafts can be done in individual cells and in the prisoner's own time, they do not depend on the nature of regimes or on the availability of workshops and supervisors. The work produced can be sold, with the proceeds saved for the prisoner on his release. The standard of work produced has been very high, so much so that some of it has been sold to leading interior designers. Prisoners can thus learn useful skills, and one man has been quoted as saying:
"You feel you're supporting yourself. I feel proud I've been given something to achieve, to get pride and self-respect".
I believe that that speaks for itself.
I notice that the patrons of "Fine Cell Work" include the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bingham of Cornhill, and Sir Stephen Tumim. Can the Minister say whether the Government are studying the ways in which this initiative works, and whether they will assist it to develop more widely? I believe that there could be many useful lessons to be learnt.
The second initiative is trying to apply some of the principles of restorative justice to sentenced prisoners in custody. It is well known that work has never been available to all prisoners. Quite often it is available for only a few hours per week. The nature of the work varies and does not always help prisoners to acquire skills that will be relevant and useful to them on release and re-entry into the community. Moreover, education is often available in a limited way for only a small percentage of all prisoners.
The restorative justice principles that are most relevant to a prison setting are those seeking to reduce re-offending by helping offenders to re-integrate into community life by taking responsibility for the harm or damage that they have caused and by doing something to benefit their victims, or the wider community. This makes sense when we know that Braille workshops and helping with riding for the disabled (in one prison at least, which is known to me) have always been popular activities with prisoners. They have enabled prisoners to feel useful by helping others, who are obviously disadvantaged.
From this level, it is clearly a huge step forward to bring prisoners into some form of contact with victims of offences, or their representatives. Well documented work of this kind has already been done in both Canada and in the United States of America. I am glad
436
to say that it is beginning in England. Prisons and young offender institutions at Stoke Heath. Huntercombe, Brinsford, Rochester, Springhill and the Mount have all made courageous starts.
It is clearly good when a prisoner stops denying the impact of his offence. It is better still if he becomes willing to apologise or to make some kind of restitution. Such behaviour should be strongly encouraged and rewarded by privileges and remission. I therefore ask the Government to study carefully what has been done, both here and in other countries. I urge them to develop restorative regimes in as many prisons as possible. There is definite scope for involving many volunteers and voluntary organisations in such work. This must be positive, both for prisoners and for society generally.
7.59 p.m.
Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, I trust that your Lordships will forgive me if I do not stay for the summing-up as I have a long-standing engagement. It is therefore with some diffidence that I ask the Minister if he will be good enough to write to me on any points I may raise. It is a pleasure to note that the Minister has retained the office he held before the election.
I wish to speak briefly about the partnership between the National Health Service and the independent sector. I must declare an interest as chairman of an independent charity hospital in central London. I hope that gone for ever is the doctrinal, almost theological, objection by the National Health Service to any private sector involvement which was the prevailing attitude up to comparatively recently. However, when I wrote this speech I was not aware that the Prime Minister would address that very point today. The culture went wider than that. Up to about 30 years ago there was a widespread attitude in the City of London that it was vaguely sinful to make money out of illness. However, happily now the mutual recognition of interdependence between the two sectors can only be to the benefit of the patient.
The independent sector's involvement is significant. The Mental Health Act Commission states that independent advisers deliver more than 55 per cent of the NHS's medium secure provision and 80 per cent of the country's brain damage rehabilitation. The Independent Healthcare Association is confident that over the life of this Parliament it will be able to offer 1 million treatments.
The independent sector trains many thousands of student nurses who spend several months at a time in independent hospitals and nursing homes where they learn about a wide range of specialties, particularly in the care of the elderly, where the independent sector plays a major role. It also provides postgraduate and management training for nurses. Similarly, for doctors there is a wide range of postgraduate accredited study courses.
In my own hospital we have for many years enjoyed a good and mutually fruitful working relationship with the National Health Service. Our hospice, which forms

437
part of the hospital, derives its income in three ways: from con tracts from a number of health authorities; from fundraising and from any surpluses from the acute side of the hospital. That encapsulates the partnership about which we are talking. Therefore, we very much welcomed the concordat initiative. We are taking a number of surgical lists, initially with two teaching hospitals, but we are exploring possibilities of working together with several more.
We have a rotating arrangement with a teaching hospital for the provision of resident medical officers who are studying for fellowship or membership of the royal colleges where they can work away from the stresses and strains of a large hospital. At the same time our patients get round the clock cover of high quality.
One of the great myths is that the independent sector somehow steals nurses away from the National Health Service. The fact is that over recent years less than 4 per cent of nurses who left the NHS moved to work in the independent sector. The remainder simply left nursing altogether, though hopefully for many of them not for ever. The contribution of the private sector is in such fields as human resource strategies as they apply to nurses, return to nursing courses and increased career and training opportunities. The independent sector can indeed regard itself as a partner of the National Health Service.
The independent sector stands committed to the success and constant improvement of the National Health Service. But let us be clear on one thing. The best people to run the National Health Service are National Health Service people. The relationship with the private sector is one of partnership, not wholesale privatisation. Speaking for myself, I have no problem with the recent remarks of the Secretary of State on that matter.
However, I fundamentally disagree with the trend of the service towards centralisation during the regime of the present: Secretary of State. The reforms under the previous Conservative administration have been derided by the present Government. The much vaunted dismantling of the market in the provision of services is largely irrelevant. The central pillar—the creation of the purchaser/provider structure—remains intact. I hope that the Government will study carefully the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Cross—who I am sorry to note is not present—on the perceptive article written as long ago as 1961 on just that point. However, the purchaser/provider structure is rendered to a large extent ineffective if with it comes the deplorable trend towards centralisation which I fear has been a feature of the past four years. The dead hand of bureaucracy was ruthlessly analysed in the Virgin report on the National Health Service in July 2000, which stated:
"Within the Service there is the impression of 'management by cascading paper', of ideas and instructions being passed down from above. The dead hand of bureaucracy seems to stifle imagination and flair and obscure responsibility".
Quite frankly, the many thousands of dedicated, caring people employed in the National Health Service deserve better that that.
438
I refer to the contracts of service of newly qualified consultants who under the NHS Plan are contracted to work exclusively for the National Health Service for either the first five or first seven years of their contract and within that period are effectively required to work overtime within those contracts. I appreciate the arguments for that, some of which are more plausible than others. I agree that the National Health Service has invested large sums of money in the training of consultants, in return for which it feels entitled to the exclusive use of their services. A less tenable argument advanced by a highly respected friend of mine in a senior position in the National Health Service is that consultants can expect rich pickings later and a hair shirt at this stage does them no harm. In other words, are these highly qualified men serving a further apprenticeship?
The proposal has been heavily attacked by the BMA, which in my view correctly states that it goes against the spirit of the private and NHS sectors working in harness, quite apart from the clinical experience in a different dimension. Consultants at any age will almost certainly benefit from straddling the two. These proposals appear to run counter to remarks made by the Secretary of State on the "On the Record" programme of 11th June 2000 who said,
"It would be a pretty odd state of affairs if we said to highly trained consultants, some of the most expert professionals we have in the Health Service, 'You are going to be denied a set of rights that everybody in the NHS has'".
I ask the Minister to clarify that apparent inconsistency. I would particularly welcome an assurance that the Government are prepared to think again on the matter, particularly in the light of the meeting which I gather also took place today between the Minister and leaders of the profession to improve communications between government and the medical profession.
This country has a tradition of excellence in the quality of nursing and clinical care which is without equal. In the quality of treatment now offered, on the other hand, we appear to lag behind many other countries. However, it is often overlooked when making these comparisons that in almost all of them there are charges, often hidden and indirect, to the patient from which in the NHS in this country we are mercifully free. Treatment in this country is indeed free at the point of delivery.
In the first 40 years or so of its existence the National Health Service was the envy of the world. It has, however, been encumbered by two factors not envisaged by its founders and for which no one is to blame. The first is the galloping cost of new technology and the second is the increased expectations on the part of patients which arise from the very success of the National Health Service. That point was most eloquently made by my noble friend Lord Dean.
I suppose that if we are to be honest we must say that all the problems of the NHS ultimately come back to funding. I do not propose to go into the many shortcomings which have been outlined tonight except to share with your Lordships the chilling experience of the case of the MRSA patient to which the noble

439
Baroness, Lady Masham, referred and whom I recognised as the son of great friends of my wife and myself.
If there is one thing I ask the Government to achieve during the course of this Parliament it is the restoration of a climate where managements are trusted from above and their initiatives encouraged. In this they can rely on the independent sector to play an increasing role in a partnership, but never, I am sure, an intrusive or challenging one.
I echo the words of my noble friend Lord Forsyth. I am sorry that he is not in his place. This must not simply be an emergency run for cover to get waiting lists down during a hard winter. It must be a true partnership. There will be only one beneficiary of that partnership: the patient.
8.10 p.m.
Baroness Gale: My Lords, I, too, give my warmest congratulations to my noble friend Lord Rooker on his maiden speech and ministerial appointment. He will contribute greatly to your Lordships' House.
I was delighted to see in the gracious Speech a reference to women's representation. The measure is long overdue. Since 1918 women have been able to stand for election to the House of Commons; and since 1928 all women have had the right to vote. That right has in the main given women the right to vote for a male candidate and elect a male Member of Parliament. Is that what the suffragettes fought for?
Some people may wonder why, at the beginning of the 21st century, we should need to adopt such measures. They may even express the view that competent women will achieve and be selected if they are good enough. Others will argue that it is the democratic right of a constituency party to select the candidate who is the choice of its members. Who could argue with that? The surprising factor is that exercising that choice nearly always results in a man being selected. It is a strange form of democracy when the result is so skewed towards men. The law of averages should allow some woman to be selected but, generally speaking, that does not occur.
For many years I believed that women would eventually make the breakthrough: that the need was for the provision of training courses for women, the offer of confidence-building and public speaking courses and of ensuring that women were up-to-date with the policies of their parties. I am sure that many women of all parties will recognise this scenario. I went along with that idea for some time. Indeed, I organised such courses for women believing that this was the way forward. But even the best-trained women still could not get selected. As a Labour Party organiser, I was responsible for organising many selection meetings in constituencies. Time after time I saw men being selected rather than the very good, or in some cases excellent, women. Why would constituency parties not select those good women?
440
Eventually I began to question why women were not getting selected. I saw many women putting themselves forward. These were women who had achieved much in their chosen career. They were good speakers. They had confidence. They were bang up-to-date on policy matters and would have made excellent Members of Parliament. But no matter how good they were they could not get selected.
Perhaps one could argue that the male candidates were so exceptional that the women, however good they were, could not possibly match up to their excellence. But that was not the case. So what is the problem? Some political parties have recognised that there is a problem. They have made efforts to address it by bringing in rules which ensure that women get on to shortlists. Different parties adopted different measures. The Labour Party brought in rules which gave women equal opportunities with men; for example, allowing bodies to nominate two candidates, one woman and one man, with an equal number of men and women on the shortlist for final selection. Given this equal opportunity, one would have hoped that women candidates would come through, at least in some constituencies. However, the reality is that constituency members of all parties play lip service to women's representation.
What women want is not simply equality of opportunity but equality of outcome. Perhaps I may give the situation in Wales as an example. Before the last general election, 10 male Members of Parliament announced that they would be retiring. There were seven Labour, two Plaid Cymru and one Liberal Democrat. Male candidates replaced all 10. I am certain that all will make good Members of Parliament. But is it not odd that not one woman was selected in a seat that her party could win? I am pleased to note that in Ynys Mon where the sitting Plaid Cymru Member stood down Labour gained the seat. In the unlikely event of the selection of a woman she would have lost to the Labour man.
That example of men replacing men can be repeated in many constituencies throughout the land, although Wales seems a little more backward in these matters. People may ask, "What are you complaining about?" Wales has led the way. Let us consider the results at the Welsh Assembly elections in 1999. Of the 28 members of the Labour group, 16 are women. Plaid Cymru has six women out of a group of 17. The Liberal Democrats have three women out of a group of six. However, of the nine Conservatives elected, all are men. Nevertheless, women have a good representation in the Welsh Assembly.
How did that happen? In the debate last Thursday, the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, suggested that the large number of women elected to the Welsh Assembly was the result of using the proportional system for the Assembly elections. However, most of the women were elected in the constituency seats on the first-past-the-post system. Fifteen Labour women, two Liberal Democrat women and two Plaid Cymru women were elected. Nineteen women out of 40 were elected on the first-past-the-post system. Only five women were elected out of 20 on the list system. Owing to the

441
resignation of my right honourable friend Alun Michael, Delyth Evans—she was number two on the Mid and West Wales list—took his seat, making the figure six.
The same thing happened in Scotland. Out of 73 constituency seats, 26 Labour women were elected, two Scottish Nationalists, and two Liberal Democrat women. In total, 30 women were elected out of 73 seats.
Out of a total of 56 seats on the list system, 18 women were elected: two Labour, 13 Nationalists and three Conservative women. Again it demonstrates that more women were elected in the constituencies than on the list system. Therefore I argue that PR is not the solution in order to have more women elected in Wales or Scotland. I accept that the use of the zipping method, for example, in the European elections could help more women to be elected. But that system is dependent on the attitudes of the parties.
How were so many women elected to the Welsh Assembly when they cannot get elected to Parliament? The main reason is that the Labour Party had the courage to instigate a system of twinning. Paired constituencies selected one man and one woman. That ensured an equal number of female and male candidates. As Labour was likely to win the majority of constituency seats it was essential that it fielded a good number of female candidates for this brand new institution; otherwise it would be similar to Westminster where the majority of Members are male. Women are playing a leading role in the Assembly, especially at Cabinet level. They have proved that given the chance they will deliver.
The method of twinning was highly controversial. As the person who had to drive it through the party, I became aware of the prejudice and discrimination that exists toward women. I had, of course, been aware of the situation but it had not previously been so blatantly obvious. Now that women had the opportunity of taking winnable seats to which men had already put their names, the prejudice became more acute. That occurred in parties where attempts were made to redress the gender imbalance. It is certainly not unique to the Labour Party. Prior to the 1997 general election the Labour Party implemented a policy of women-only shortlists to ensure the selection and election of more women. The policy was successfully challenged at an industrial tribunal. Labour immediately stopped the procedure but many women had already been selected. It meant that a record number of women were elected in 1997. Some believed that with that success the mould had been broken. Unfortunately, that was not the case. Fewer women were elected at this year's general election than in 1997.
Without special measures in place, women will not get selected for seats that they can win. Members of all parties have shown a great reluctance to choose women as their candidates. The prejudice and discrimination against women in all parties is a disgrace. That, rather than the inability or weakness of
442
potential women candidates, is what prevents women becoming Members of Parliament or achieving other elected offices.
There is only one answer to the problem, and that is legislation. The proposal in the gracious Speech to bring forward legislation to assist women in public life is most welcome. Although this is a great step forward, similar action has already taken place France. A new law, thought to be unique, was used for the first time at the local elections in May this year. As a result, approximately 48 per cent of councillors are women, as opposed to 22 per cent at the previous elections in 1995. Time does not allow me to elaborate on that law and what it means, but it shows that the French Government are prepared to bring in legislation to combat discrimination and prejudice against women. Where positive action is taken in favour of women, women prove that they are capable of doing the job, as has been shown in the Cabinet of the Welsh Assembly, where women are in the majority. People now say how good it is to have women in such high positions, rather than saying how terrible these women are for trying to get our seats. They are good role models for women in Wales, showing that they can hold tough portfolios and deliver for Wales.
It is essential that the proposed legislation be brought before Parliament at the earliest opportunity, in time for the selection of candidates for the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly elections in 2003 and in plenty of time for the next general election. I am very pleased that Her Majesty's Government have recognised that this is the way forward. In future, political parties will be able to decide for themselves if they wish to have all-women shortlists without the worry or threat of legal action. Equally, there will be no compulsion on parties who do not wish to go down that road. Those who have tried for mans years to assist and support women in their efforts to obtain elected office welcome the proposed legislation to get more women in Parliament. The campaign has gone on since women were first allowed to stand for Parliament.
I have nothing but praise for the Government on this issue. In the future, women will be given an equal chance with men at selection conferences and will have an equal chance of holding elected office. I hope that the Minister can give an assurance that this matter is regarded as urgent and that the legislation will be before Parliament at the earliest opportunity; otherwise there will be another generation of lost opportunities for women.
8.23 p.m.
Baroness Stern: My Lords, I shall say a few words about the commitment in the gracious Speech to modernise the criminal justice system and to reform sentencing. In that context, I very much welcome the excellent maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, and his commitment to thin king before legislating. I suggest that before they embark on a reform of sentencing, the Government might want to take a good hard look at what has happened to sentencing in England and Wales in the past 10 years.

443
They might want to reflect on the great changes that have taken place and to measure how far they have helped the Government to achieve their objectives of preventing crime, giving proper redress and satisfaction to victims, improving confidence in the criminal justice system, leading to a change for the better in the behaviour of criminals and, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham said, restoring to their full humanity those who fail.
As the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, pointed out earlier in the debate, there have been big changes in sentencing practice in England and Wales during the past 10 years. Our proportionate use of prison sentences has increased substantially. In 1990, out of every 100 men aged 21 or over sentenced for indictable offences, 17 received an immediate prison sentence. In 1999, the figure was 28—a 65 per cent increase. For women the increase has been even greater—a 166 per cent jump over 10 years. Of course the numbers in prison have gone up. On 15th June, we were locking up more than 66,000 people. On the last Friday in June in 1990, we were locking up 45,500.
Our treatment of children—defined by the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child as those under 18—has also changed markedly over the past 10 years. There are now more than twice as many children aged 15 to 17 sentenced and imprisoned as there were 10 years ago. Once again, seeming female wickedness has outpaced that of men. In 1988, 60 girls between 15 and 17 were sentenced to prison. In 1998, the figure was 302.
International comparisons are also interesting. We are moving further away from our European neighbours. Our imprisonment rate is the second highest in the European Union. It is now 64 per cent higher than in France and 21 per cent higher than in Germany. The European Union average for the proportion of the prison population aged 15 to 20 is 8 per cent. The England and Wales figure is 17 per cent.
As we heard in yesterday's debate on the gracious Speech, our spending on education is lower than that of our European neighbours. The same applies to health, as we heard today from the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth. However, our spending on imprisonment is higher than that of our European neighbours. What does that show about our priorities?
I apologise for subjecting the House to so many figures at this hour. I know that it can become very tedious, but I have quoted them to make the point that the changes that have taken place in sentencing in England and Wales in the past 10 years have not been slight or a minor shift in a different direction; they have been fundamental.
In recent years, the Home Office has been concerned that its work should be evidence-based. That description crops up in most Home Office documents about the criminal justice system. The paper Criminal Justice: The Way Forward produced in February this year tells us that,
"the Government has embarked on a comprehensive evidence-based programme to reduce crime".
444
It is rational to look at the evidence. It would be interesting to know what evidence has driven the changes in sentencing over the past 10 years. Those changes have been steadily in the same direction, regardless of the change of administration in 1997. It would be useful to look at the evidence on the consequences of a policy that uses imprisonment not just for dangerous and violent offenders, but for many non-violent or petty repeat offenders.
In the United States, which has 2 million prisoners and the highest rate of imprisonment in the world—more than five times the rate in England and Wales—scholars are now working to measure what they call "collateral damage". What will be the long-term consequences, they are asking, of this high use of imprisonment over the past decade on families which are broken up by imprisonment and on the neighbourhoods from which most of the prisoners come—neighbourhoods where many young men grow up expecting not to go to university but to prison? What are the effects on the many millions of children whose parents are imprisoned?
It is often argued that the negative effects, whatever they are, have been worth it. To some, the matter seems very simple: lock up more people and crime goes down. Certainly the violent crime rate in the United States has decreased steadily. It is claimed that that is because so many people are in prison. The research, which is extensive, suggests that, perhaps at most, 15 per cent of that reduction can be attributed to the huge increase in the use of imprisonment. The research also suggests that if the money that has been spent on that huge increase had been spent on other measures, the crime drop would have been greater than 15 per cent.
The increase in the number of prisoners in England and Wales has also had consequences for the prison system. I hope that we shall discuss that in much more depth in the debate to be initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Hurd, next month.
The Government have high ambitions for the prison system. They want prisons to become places where rehabilitation is the norm, where education levels are improved, employability increased, and drug treatment successfully given. Those high ambitions are excellent, and there is no doubt that many staff in the prison service have the talent and commitment to fulfil them. But such efforts are continually defeated by the pressure of numbers. New prisons are always being built and still prisons are always overcrowded and battling with too many prisoners to do the job that the Government want them to do.
For the Government to fulfil their ambition to make prison a rehabilitative experience for each prisoner, considerable resources will be required. Prison staff will need much better training. They will need more time to give individual attention, time to make links with the community, and time to find employers who are prepared to give ex-prisoners a job. The cost of delivering such a prison system is very high, but it could be done if the number of prisoners were lower.

445
Resources could be used on those who need to be imprisoned for the protection of the public. Such resources could be concentrated on ways to help prisoners to deal with the problems in their lives that brought them there. Work could be undertaken to bring them to an understanding of the harm that they have done and the consequences of their actions on victims. As the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, pointed out, excellent work on those lines is already taking place in a number of prisons.
Published government plans talk of another 2,660 prison places to be built. Rumours circulating in criminal justice circles suggest that the Government are looking for quick ways to build another 10,000 prison places. I sincerely hope that that really is only a rumour. The Home Office's own projections for the future size of the prison population give three possible figures for the year 2008—the highest being 83,500.
Would it now be possible for the Government to look again at the theory that being tough on crime means locking up more people; that public confidence in the criminal justice system is built on a high use of prison; and that what victims mean by "getting justice" is heavy punishment? I wonder whether that is really the direction in which the Government want to go or whether, as the Chancellor said in the other place earlier this week,
"the best … anti-delinquency and anti-crime policy, is to take the next 1 million children out of poverty".—[Official Report, Commons, 25/6/01; col. 397.]
In his very wise intervention earlier today, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham talked about the limitations of criminal justice legislation when dealing with crime. As legislators, it is salutary for us to remember that.
8.35 p.m.
Lord Mancroft: My Lords, I want to ask your Lordships to think for a moment longer about crime— about violent crime, acquisitive crime and drug-related crime, which so often are one and the same thing.
As we have been hearing, the Government have chosen to address the issue of crime in terms of the numbers of policemen on our streets. The assumption appears to be that an increase in police numbers, coupled with a reform of the process by which the criminal justice system operates, will restore confidence in the Government's ability to deliver law and order. Of course, maintaining law and order is one of the primary duties of government.
The single biggest identifiable cause of crime is drugs. The supplying and consumption of drugs, along with the acquisitive crimes needed to purchase drugs, have increased and continue to increase in exact parallel with the levels of relevant crime. Football disorder is clearly very serious, and the Government have addressed it through the gracious Speech. But the drug problem is now probably the biggest social problem facing our society today. However, the Government have not chosen to address it.
446
When it comes to children, it is amazing how parents from every walk of life, regardless of their colour, race, creed or whether they are rich or poor, share many of the same concerns. One of the greatest concerns that they all share is that of drugs. Because my interest in the subject is well known, parents often raise the subject with me.
What every parent to whom I have ever spoken has in common is a real fear of what might happen to their children and the fact that, even now, they have very little idea of what they can do. When they do obtain information from schools or social services, it is very little and often conflicting. They are right to be concerned. Over 400,000 children under the age of 16 now smoke cannabis. Drugs from cannabis to ecstasy to heroin to cocaine are routinely offered in pubs and clubs throughout Britain.
Yet the whole subject was ignored throughout the election campaign and, apart from the establishment of a criminal assets recovery agency, which the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, mentioned in his speech and which was in the gracious Speech and which may have a marginal effect at best, drugs got no mention at all in the gracious Speech.
The low turnout at the general election has worried many people. One reason why people feel detached from politics is, I believe, that they consider that politicians do not seem able to address the issues that people really care about. One of those issues is drugs. However, I believe that when the Prime Minister and Mr Straw appointed the drug czar after the 1997 election, they really did want to address this issue, in exactly the same way as Mr John Major and Mr Michael Howard really wanted to address it in 1992.
Indeed, the policy adopted by this Government is the continuation of the policy announced by Michael Howard in 1994. But that policy has failed and is continuing to fail for two reasons. First, it is based on impossible targets. The new Home Secretary has effectively sacked the czar, Mr Hellawell, because he has failed to reach his targets. But those targets were always unattainable, and to blame Mr Hellawell for failing to do the impossible does not fool anyone.
The targets to reduce drug use and the onset of drug use among young people by set amounts were never possible, particularly when the only real weapon available is the criminal law. They are impossible for a simple reason. Drug use becomes a serious problem only when users descend into addiction. Addiction is a health problem, and one cannot cure health problems using the criminal law. There may well be a role for the courts but not, I believe, the central role that they have now.
The second reason for that failure is that, although the policy of the previous Conservative government and of this Government seems to indicate a shift away from law enforcement towards treatment and prevention, the reality is that the move has been negligible.

447
The substantive point is this. Over the past decade, the quality of treatment for addicts here in the UK has improved enormously, predominantly in the private and voluntary sectors. We now have treatment of which we can be proud and, more importantly, which is economically viable and which produces demonstrable benefits. Extensive research conducted over the past few years, including the very good research carried out by the Department of Health, proves without a shadow of doubt that treatment works for the addict, for the family of the addict and for society as a whole. Twenty years ago there were no ex-addicts but today there are lots of them. I have been involved with treatment for more than 15 years. The Drug and Alcohol Foundation, which I chair, provides high-quality day care treatment here in central London. There is good news—thanks to the development of local authority funding, large numbers of our patients are referred by local authorities. The money really does follow the patient.
In the area of in-patient treatment there are other real problems. The lack of meaningful funding means that the number of drug treatment places has not increased in this country for more than a decade. If drugs is a "young people's problem", as politicians tell us, can someone explain to me why there is only one facility in the entire United Kingdom that specialises in the treatment of adolescent drug addicts? It is clear that that should be changed.
Drug treatment providers are currently waiting to see what the results of the new care standards that will be set by the Department of Health will be. If, as we have been led to believe over the past few months, those standards are to be based on the requirements of care for the elderly rather than for addicts, and that en suite bathrooms will become mandatory and that shared rooms will be banned, the number of places will fall by 20 per cent and I suspect that several facilities will close. I hope that the Minister will give me some comfort on that issue, although he may not do so today.
We know that treatment is only part of the answer. The long-term solution to the drugs problem lies in reducing the number of people who take drugs and, as a first step, in reducing the age at which people start to use drugs. The present Government accept that, as did the previous government.
Mentor UK, of which, for its sins, I am also chairman, is the UK branch of the largest nongovernmental drug prevention organisation in the world. We work with many governments and are very happy to be working alongside the Home Office or the Cabinet Office. As my noble friend Lord Cope said, we assume that moving responsibility for drugs from the Cabinet Office to the Home Office involves a downgrade. But I really hope that it does not and that the Minister can give us reassurance on that point. I believe that drug prevention is one of the keys to this extremely complex problem. However, in order to achieve meaningful results the Government will have to start spending some real money and accept that it
448
may take a long time to get results. Advertising campaigns and reluctant schoolteachers are not the way forward. Michael Howard wrote in 1994 that,
"teachers will discover that pupils know far more about drugs than they do".
He was right. Teaching pupils even more is not going to make them take fewer drugs. We have to have a root-and-branch change in attitude, which must start at the top—in government. However, that has not started yet.
Although the Government's reports, of which there are rather a lot, seem at first glance to be catalogues of success, it is worth noting that as yet not one prevention initiative has demonstrably led to a reduction in drug use within any defined social group.
At the same time that treatment and prevention programmes are starved of resources, we are pouring billions into the attempt to police drugs. The Printed Paper Office was kind enough to supply me with piles of expensive glossy brochures that were published by the Cabinet Office. They contain pages of tables showing the amount of seizures of drugs and the number of arrests and—this seems rather odd—three whole pages were about how to catch a drug smuggler.
I learnt that Customs and Excise exceeded its target of disrupting 5 per cent of class A drug traffickers in 1998. That was obviously felt to be very important because it appeared in bold black print. That really is not impressive. We do not want glossy brochures because we also know the other side of the coin. The illegal drugs industry is now the second largest industry in the world. Although Customs intercepted drugs worth £1.25 billion last year, one senior officer told me that he thinks that drugs worth well over £12 billion got through. When a large haul is intercepted nowadays the price of drugs on our streets remains unchanged and during the past 10 years prices have actually fallen while demand continues to rise. Noble Lords do not need to be professors of economics to understand what that means.
The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, said in his excellent maiden speech, on which we all congratulate him, that violent crime is down by 10 per cent. That is good. Moreover, it is very good that last week was the first week in more than a year in which someone has not been shot dead in central London in a drug-related crime involving illegal firearms. That good news is balanced by the fact that a new and particularly unattractive brand of machinegun was used to murder someone in a similar crime in Manchester. It is all swings and roundabouts.
We were told by the Government that when, following Dunblane, the legal ownership of handguns was banned, that would have a noticeable effect on the figures for the criminal use of handguns. When we voiced some doubts about that, they were brushed aside. However, we were right and the Government were completely wrong. A perfectly legitimate sport was destroyed, the taxpayer had to shell out £90 million in compensation and the provision has made no difference at all. Is it any wonder that politicians are held in such low esteem?

449
The reality is that the war on drugs is a hugely expensive failure and is now arguably causing more harm than good. I know it, noble Lords know it and most parents are beginning to realise it, too. Even the Right-wing media admits it; virtually every serious newspaper accepts the need to look again at the Misuse of Drugs Act. It is apparent that the only people who do not know that are our elected leaders.
Of course, this is an extremely complex and difficult subject. Anyone who tells us that they have all the answers is either very brave or very foolish. We shall have to look hard if we want to make progress and we must be willing to take political risks. In order to achieve any progress the Government will have to show a bit of humility, which they are not very good at.
Last year the Police Foundation produced an excellent report entitled Drugs and the Law. It was well received everywhere except at Queen Anne's Gate. Indeed, the Home Secretary rejected it out of hand within a matter of hours, which, if it showed nothing else, showed that he had not devoted much care or thought to it. It is difficult to have much faith in politicians when they do things like that. It merely serves to alienate people still further.
Perhaps the new Home Secretary knew what I was going to say tonight—he has just executed a policy U-turn by giving his cautious support to the police in Brixton, who announced that from now on they will only caution people who are caught in possession of cannabis so that they can concentrate on other drugs work.
Perhaps my right honourable friend Mr Portillo is canvassing my support—I cannot think why—by suggesting that my party should re-think its drug policy. He is quite right; we should. The Conservative Party and the Labour Party have had virtually identical drugs policies for more than 30 years, when they collaborated over the passage of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. That policy is now obsolete and destructive. When Mr Straw said that he would be tough on drugs, he did so in part, I suspect, because he thought that that is what people wanted to hear.
Public opinion is changing, and it is doing so quite quickly. People do not want tough policies or weak policies; they simply want effective policies, and they are not getting them at the moment. That means that change is needed; such change must be debated here in Parliament. I hope that the new Home Secretary will tell the other place what his view of the Brixton experiment is and I hope that noble Lords will also have an opportunity to debate it.
Today's debate, which focuses on health and crime issues, was an ideal opportunity to deal with a subject that straddles both the Home Office and the Department of Health. I presume that the lack of a policy commitment demonstrates a vacuum in the Government's thinking. I have always known that no government would focus on this issue until it rose up the political agenda. It has now started to do so and as Parliament proceeds we shall have to return to this subject in order to fill that vacuum.
450
The Government have a great deal on their plate if they are to deliver their election promises. They will certainly not be able to improve the levels of policing, improve the criminal courts, prevent the prison population from rising, reduce street crime, reverse the decline in A and E departments or deal with a whole host of other issues unless they address the drugs issue. Addressing the problems that are created by drugs use and drug-related crime has now ceased to be an issue that is on the political periphery. It has become a political imperative, and it will impact one way or another on the delivery of the reforms on which the Government will be judged at the next elect on.
8.49 p.m.
Baroness Howells of St Davids: My Lords, I welcome this opportunity to take part in the debate on the gracious Speech.
I express some sympathy with the Minister, who by now may feel that every issue of concern has already been raised. I am afraid that I am about to disabuse him of any such feeling by raising a specific issue that is of concern to the black British. I shall, however, be brief.
I begin with racism in the health service. I vividly recall the call that this nation issued after the last war to the colonies to come and assist Britain in rebuilding its public and private services by supplying the much needed manpower that had been lost to Britain in World War II. That call was responded to handsomely and, even though there were several hurdles to be overcome, that generation gave generously, especially to the health service. Britain can be very proud of the work that was done at that time because it certainly gained many plaudits for having such a wonderful service. Those people did that with fortitude and a willingness to serve the country that they regarded as the mother country. Their agenda was simply to ensure a better life for their children, better education and better standards of professional skills as a means of upward mobility.
I pause to read a quote from Desmond Tutu who said:
"I am not interested in picking up crumbs from the table of those who consider themselves to be my master—I want a full menu of rights".
That quote appears in a report called Racism in Medicine: An Agenda for Change. I bring it to the attention of the House because of the intolerable level of racism within the health service experienced by people whose skins are black, brown, red and yellow. The report states that as a result of stress, a significant proportion of black and other ethnic minorities carry a higher burden of poor health, premature death and long-term chronic illness than other groups in the population.
It is not bad health to which I want to direct my few minutes but rather the employment of the second and third-generation black Britons who suffer racism in the service. In the gracious Speech, it was said that the Government will introduce legislation to reform the health service and that they will bring forward a Bill

451
which will decentralise power and direct resources to the National Health Service. My plea to the Minister is that in so doing, I trust that part of the budget will be spent on the thorny issue of eradicating racism from within the service. Racism acts as a major hurdle to health and wealth. It puts a needless burden on the service that we provide by denying professionally qualified black staff equity and parity with the white staff of the service.
A viable commitment must be put in place and monitored to address equal opportunities in employment. There must be a will to tackle harassment and to provide competent and consistent training in recognising the most subtle forms of racism. It does take an extremely subtle form in the field of employment. We must be aware of the time lost through cruel acts of racism within our society. The report to which I referred calls for a whole systems approach. I urge the Minister to ensure that that happens.
Diversity needs to be valued. Challenging racist and discriminatory practices must be part of the whole service. The previous government strengthened the Race Relations Act by the provisions of the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000. That placed a duty on institutions actively to promote racial equality. The report to which I referred, Racism in Medicine, gives a clear and direct account of some of the effects and consequences of institutional racism. It goes on to offer some very practical advice on how to deal with racism in institutions in order to deliver a fair and equitable service.
I invite the Minister to ensure that that report is read because the social exclusion of black British professionals could lead us down alleyways which we have not even begun to contemplate. That is not a threat; it is a fact. Our professionals are not happy with the treatment that they are receiving. I did not use the statistics in the report because I hope that every noble Lord will spend some time reading the facts as they are presented in that report by the professionals themselves.
I respect the number of years' service that the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, has given in the other place. I add my welcome and congratulate him on both the wit and seriousness which he brings to this House. I look forward to working with him as I have worked with the previous Home Secretary and the noble Lord, Lord Hunt.
8.55 p.m.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, today we have had a very wide-ranging debate, as is customary, and we have had some memorable speeches. I do not plan to stray much beyond my usual remit on the health front but I want to mention in particular two speeches from other Benches which I found utterly lucid and compelling; notably, those from the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, and the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy. Both were superb speeches which informed this debate in an extremely helpful way.
452
I too want to add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, on his maiden speech. I know that he will bring his well-known intellectual vigour and independence to the Home Office where many of us would think that it was sorely needed. I was particularly taken by his evidence-based approach because that is an approach needed in other government departments and I shall turn to that later.
Despite the great anticipation that we all had to hear the first Queen's Speech in this Government's second term, a highly significant event, I am afraid that on these Benches, many of our first and continuing reactions were of great disappointment. First, there is the failure to reintroduce the Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Bill. It is quite astonishing—that is not a word that is often used in this House—because it had already passed through the House of Commons in the previous Session and, indeed, had received a Second Reading in the Lords. Devastating critiques of the Government's decision not to bring forward that Bill were made by the noble Lord, Lord Rea, on the Government Benches and also by my noble friend Lady Northover. I entirely agree with them. Is that another demonstration of the power over this Government of the tobacco companies? It certainly seems to us to demonstrate the Government's lack of interest in preventative health measures since smoking has such a major effect on diseases which are meant to be important government priorities; for example, cancer, heart disease, lung disease and a variety of other respiratory diseases such as asthma.
The second disappointment is the failure to introduce new mental health legislation which is needed to update our very out-of-date mental health legislation going back to 1983. We have had a comprehensive review from Professor Richardson; we have had the Government response; we have had a consultation period. Surely we should now see the colour of the Government's proposals, at least in the form of a draft Bill. Is that simply the Government ducking another difficult issue?
Soon there will be more people in this country diagnosed as suffering from mental illnesses than from purely physical illnesses. That delay seems to demonstrate a complete lack of priority in this Parliament compared with the last when, as the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, made plain, some progress was made in the mental health services field.
Even more disappointing, perhaps, than those two failures is this Government's reaction to their failure to deliver on the health service in their first term of office. At times, the Government's message seems to be that the great salvation of the NHS will be the private sector. I was extremely interested to hear the contributions from other Benches with very similar themes—from the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, to some extent from the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, and other noble Lords, in particular, the noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Cross. It seems a strange set of bedfellows for this Government and I wonder how comfortable they feel in that company. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Dean, gave the game away by saying

453
that he believed that the Government were following Tory policies on health and education. At that point I saw the Minister wriggle.
As yet there is no evidence that the private sector has delivered, or that it has the capacity to make much difference to the NHS. In almost every case PFIs have delivered fewer beds than the hospitals that they replace and by closing and reducing services at small local hospitals, they reduce access to patients.
I shall not engage with the Minister in selective quotations from the recent IPPR report, Building Better Partnerships, which was published last Monday, but it is clear that the authors are highly sceptical that so far there have been any benefits in the NHS as regards PFI. The chairman of the commission that undertook the report is a former chief executive of Barclays Bank and the current chairman of W H Smith, so he can hardly be accused of being anti private sector involvement.
The authors say that a cautious approach to the use of PPPs in areas such a clinical services is needed with careful piloting and evaluation. They call for an evidence-based approach; they say that a wider range of procurement models than just PFI is needed. By that I mean procurement models in partnership with the private sector. They further say that accountability models are inadequate and that the public and the National Audit Office should be given greater access to information. The report further states that PPPs should be used to improve standards and not just lower costs at the expense of quality.
I welcome the Secretary of State's subsequent attempt this week to give more clarity to the role of the private sector, but in some ways he has strangely circumscribed the role of the private sector in what he has said. It was almost an over-reaction to the criticism that has been made. We need open information and open debate about the performance of the private sector in such partnerships, so that it can be evaluated properly. This is not a theoretical construct. In that respect I bow to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Cross. He is very able to build theoretical constructs; we are talking about practical application and whether benefits are brought about for the patients and the National Health Service.
Ministers extol the virtues of evidence-based medicine. We need hard evidence of the benefit of PFI and other partnership initiatives with the private sector. We are in a strange situation where the vice-chairman of investment at NM Rothschild urges the adoption of a wholly different PPP model, which provides better value and more flexibility for the taxpayer and the Government.
More generally, what kind of impact on morale does the Government believe that they have to extol the extension of delivery by the private sector as the way
454
to meet targets? It is clear that it is a serious deterrent to those contemplating a career in public service—dare I use that phrase—and in NHS healthcare.
We do not have a great pool of untapped talent in the private sector, as the Secretary of State admitted at the weekend, so why are we demoralising those in the public sector where there is such a pool? As the King's Fund has said,
"enterprise does not have to be the preserve of the private sector".
An editorial in a recent health service journal said:
"A more constructive way forward than chasing a myth would be to capitalise on the talents of public sector managers to improve standards across the service—not ordering in private sector teams to run red-light trusts, but harnessing the skills of the best NHS teams to help the not-so-good do better".
On these Benches we could not have put it better.
If, in the face of that, the Government have a privatisation agenda, let us hear about it in the open and not by stealth. A previous Secretary of State for Health, Mr Frank Dobson, certainly seems to disagree with the Government's current approach. He has stressed that taking on the health unions on the subject is not the right approach. No doubt today we shall hear the outcome of today's meeting at No. 10.
A second limb of the Government's response to their failure to deliver is their promised measures to decentralise. My noble friend Lady Northover was absolutely right to be sceptical about the Government's intentions. After all, that commitment comes after several years of relentless centralisation. How will merging the existing health authorities in England into 30 larger authorities constitute decentralisation? What discretion will they be allowed? What will be the acceptable level of variation? In what experimentation can they engage? What impact will all that have on a future English regional devolution programme?
Recently Professor Rudolph Klein summed it up well in the BMJ:
"The first reaction to Mr Milburn's speech is, however, likely to be one of cynicism. At one time or other all Secretaries of State for Health—Conservative as well as Labour—have rhetorically embraced the notion of devolving power. But this has not stopped a seemingly unstoppable trend towards ever greater centralisation, culminating with the present government".
And he is sympathetic. As he suggests, with this target-driven government perhaps we should have a set of devolution performance indicators, then at least we could ensure that the reality matches the rhetoric.
We on these Benches support genuine decentralisation and innovation—the public supports innovation—but it must be for patient benefit. As for improved patient representation—that rather interesting euphemism used in the Queen's Speech—I shall not anticipate the debates that we shall have on the Bill when it emerges, but we shall look at it with extreme scepticism if it bears any relationship to the scheme put forward in the last Health and Social Care Bill.
The Kidderminster Hospital drama is a lesson for the Government. A defeat of a government Minister

455
on a single issue campaign perhaps can be shrugged off when a government have a majority of 166, but this is a cloud that is no bigger than a man's hand that could blow up into a major storm if the Government continue down their current track. How this Government deliver will be just as important as what they deliver. Will they genuinely consult with staff and patients? Will they take their views into account? Will they be open and transparent about the performance of their initiative? Will they genuinely decentralise and empower those who run health services at local level?
In the face of that, noble Lords may ask what our prescription is for the better health of the NHS and what are the priorities of these Benches. First, we believe that more resources are needed than are currently planned. In particular, an increase in staffing levels is needed beyond those planned. We desperately need to build capacity, as my noble friend made clear. No doubt Ministers have studied carefully the recent report that they themselves commissioned from the Policy Studies Institute which graphically describes the stress suffered by senior nurses in particular. Because of lack of staff, they fill the gaps themselves with extra shifts rather than taking on agency staff. Morale in the NHS is at an all-time low. Noble Lords will have heard a debate held before the election. All the evidence during the election supported what we said at that time. We knew then that four out of five doctors would leave the NHS if they could. Now we know that one out of three nurses is contemplating leaving the health service.
There is no substitute for more capacity and more health service staff. Last month the outgoing general secretary of the Royal College of Nursing, Christine Hancock, said,
"Without enough nurses and other healthcare staff, make no mistake, NHS modernisation will fail".
During the election, we made no bones about the need properly to fund the health service and to add further resources, and the electorate responded positively to our proposals.
All that means better recruitment and retention and we cannot achieve that without better pay and conditions. Furthermore, we cannot achieve it without being absolutely clear about the resources that are needed. Primary care, in which there is a gap of some 8,000 general practitioners between what the BMA says is necessary and what the Government are committed to providing, is a case in point. Problems over doctors' contracts arise to a high degree because of excessive workload, and reassurance about levels of recruitment are needed.
Secondly, we need to make better use of existing resources. We want to extend prescribing to nurses and professions allied to medicine and we share the Government's goals in that respect. We see a much greater role for community pharmacists. We see an opportunity for non-invasive surgical techniques and telemedicine to give a greater role to small hospitals.
456
We see the provision of intermediate beds at some of our small hospitals. Indeed, the Kidderminster case clearly demonstrates that we must find a role for these small local hospitals. Some of those proposals represent ways in which we can do that.
Thirdly, we need a major change in management style. The Secretary of State is effectively the executive chairman of the NHS, which belies his decentralisation rhetoric. The purse strings are firmly kept at the centre with trusts in virtually every case having to bid for new money for initiatives. That is all very time-consuming and bureaucratic. Together with decentralisation measures, will the Government undertake to reduce such red tape and reduce the amount of micro-management that is taking place?
Fourthly, we need to define the benefits of public-private involvement. In particular, we need to evaluate the benefits of PFI. We need to use PFI and other forms of PPP where that is demonstrably superior to pure public investment. We need to improve the way in which we have public-sector comparators. We also need to remove the bias so that there is genuine choice for hospital trusts between the different ways of financing. We need to ensure that we introduce more flexible contracts. Above all, we need to define the risk being transferred into the private sector. At present, many contracts are pure fudge and we need to look at different models. We on these Benches are not against public/private partnership in principle, but we need transparency about whether or not they work.
Fifthly, we need to end bed-blocking. Unless we ensure that appropriate arrangements are in place either in the community, in intermediate care or in acute hospitals, we will continue to suffer bed crises, and not just in winter. We have disagreements with the Government on the funding of long-term care, which have been well rehearsed, But the Government now appear to be reconsidering their commitment to fund even the limited amount of free nursing care to which they committed themselves in the Health and Social Care Bill. Will there be a cap on the nursing care provided? We believe that there must be a response to the recommendations of the Future Imperfect report by the King's Fund on the state of support for older and disabled people. If there is no improvement, how will there be any incentive for older people to leave acute hospitals in order to free beds which are necessary for those requiring acute care?
There is a huge agenda ahead of the Government and the Minister is very active in responding to our criticisms and constructive suggestions. We will be constructive in our approach to legislation when it comes before the House. However, we expect evidence not assertion; we expect increases in capacity, not restriction; and we expect consultation, not diktat. On that basis, we shall certainly work with the Government.
9.12 p.m.
Earl Howe: My Lords, as we embark upon a new Parliament, it is perhaps appropriate that I should

457
begin my remarks today by congratulating the Government on their success in the general election. The majority which they have secured in another place is by any standards a remarkable achievement. The sense of disappointment shared by all of us on these Benches should not lead us to begrudge the Government their success. I am sure we are all delighted that the Prime Minister saw fit to reappoint the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, to his ministerial position at the Department of Health, a position which he has occupied so ably. I join other noble Lords in welcoming the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, to the Front Bench of your Lordships' House and in congratulating him on his excellent maiden speech.
In remarking on the Government's majority in another place, it is worth saying that by virtue of that mandate the task which falls to us in this House of opposing the Government—by that, I chiefly mean probing them, testing them and calling them to account—is rendered all the more important. I have little doubt that that view is shared by noble Lords on the Liberal Democrat Benches but it is one which during the years ahead I believe we should all bear in mind, regardless of party. It is counter-productive and wrong for an opposition to oppose for the sake of opposing. The Minister knows that I for one will never do that.
Looking back over the previous Parliament, there were many areas in which the Minister and I were able to agree completely, but, as we consider the words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, last week, we must treat with great caution any proposal to reform our working arrangements if they risk hampering the ability of this House to discharge its duties effectively, particularly in the scrutiny of legislation. I am as passionate about that as I am open-minded about ideas for change.
If there has been one noticeable strand of thought permeating the contributions to today's debate, whether on home affairs or health issues, I suggest that it is humanitarianism. I have in mind in particular the thoughtful speeches of the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, both right reverend Prelates, my noble friends Lord Forsyth, Lord Mancroft and Lady Carnegy, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Masham and Lady Kennedy of The Shaws. I could mention several others. In that vein, it is a considerable pleasure to look forward with the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, to the arrival of an adoption and children Bill. If, as I hope, the Bill is modelled along similar lines to the measure which had to be withdrawn because of the general election, I can tell the Minister that we shall welcome it and give it our most constructive attention. I believe that the Government share our view that legislation on adoption should put the interests of the child at the centre of the adoption process. That was the general principle which underpinned the Children Act. It is terribly important that more parents should be able to
458
adopt children if they wish to do so, not as a means of gratifying their wishes—still less as a means of cutting bureaucracy, however much we may regard that aim as desirable—but rather as a means of giving more children the opportunity to have a loving and secure family environment in which to grow up.
I was interested to read in The Times on Monday a letter from Liv O'Hanlon, head of the Adoption Forum, who has done so much to champion the cause of adopted children over the past few years. She particularly emphasised that any reforms will count for little unless they are backed by adequate funding. I suggest that we call that point to mind with some regularity during the passage of the legislation. I hope that the Minister will personally pursue it as he did the very similar issues which arose from the Children (Leaving Care) Act.
Like other noble Lords, I was surprised and bemused by some of the lacunae in the gracious Speech. As the noble Lord, Lord Rea, among others, pointed out, perhaps the most obvious lacuna is the proposed ban on tobacco advertising. Having been roundly told only a matter of weeks ago by the Secretary of State that the Government were determined to do something about tobacco advertising, and having heard the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, tell us that the Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Bill held out the prospect of saving 3,000 lives a year, it is odd that that measure is no longer the Government's priority that it once appeared to be.
Of equal concern, however, must be the absence of any announcement about a new mental health Bill. That lacuna was mentioned in particular by the noble Lords, Lord Williamson of Horton and Lord Clement-Jones. I hope that the Minister will take the opportunity to reassure us that there has been no weakening on the Government's part as regards their commitment to bring forward legislation to reform the current Mental Health Act. As all of us accept, that Act is out of date in the context of current practice and attitudes. I pay tribute to the Government for a good deal of useful work in preparation for such a Bill. I only hope that we shall see that work bear fruit before too long.
One measure to which we can look forward, no doubt with eager anticipation all round, is an NHS reform Bill. I hope that I do not sound too ungrateful, but it seems only the other day that we finished debating a very substantial NHS reform Bill. I am tempted to wonder how many more such Bills the Government have in store for us over the next five years. I understand the imperatives. From the point of view of the Government, there is a certain amount of unfinished business relating to patient representation. There are also a number of reforms to the GMC which I very much hope will prove to be uncontroversial. But the part the Bill which has received perhaps most coverage in the press and elsewhere is the proposal to devolve 75 per cent of NHS spending power directly to front-line staff. As the Minister knows only too well, I

459
am all for decentralisation. Giving front-line staff the responsibility for local spending decisions is definitely the way to motivate those staff better and to make the NHS more effective and efficient. That was the principle which lay behind GP fundholding, which, regrettably, the Government abolished.
I hope that I may be forgiven for echoing my noble friends Lord Bridgeman and Lady Carnegy, among others, in sounding a slightly sceptical note as to how the much-heralded decentralisation will work in practice. If old attitudes in Whitehall persist and if what the Virgin Group in their review described as "management by cascading paper" remains ingrained in the culture of the NHS, then I am anxious. The Minister and I have been fond of teasing one another on the subject. But he will agree with me that at its heart this is a real and serious issue. Of course there have to be targets set from the centre. The question is what, and how numerous, those targets should be. The trend over the past four years has been to accentuate the role of the department in setting targets rather than the opposite. I believe it would be better for doctors, managers and patients if that trend were now reversed.
In that context, it was with considerable relief that I learned that the Government had abandoned their manifesto pledge from 1997 to bring down the numbers on the in-patient waiting list. If ever there was a recipe for the misallocation of resources and poor clinical prioritisation it was that policy. With the emphasis now on waiting times, I agree with my noble friend Lord Dean that we are certainly moving towards a better kind of regime. However, even here, I would respectfully counsel caution to the Minister. So long as such targets remain in blanket form, they are by their very nature indiscriminate and take no account of clinical need. They are useful as a general benchmark of performance but not, I suggest, as an absolute indicator of efficiency, still less of clinical effectiveness. I hope that Ministers will not try to have us believe otherwise.
The Government know that there is much that needs to be done to improve the delivery of healthcare in our country. We sometimes need to remind ourselves that in trying to improve the health service we are building on a strong base. I am talking now about the men and women who work for the health service and whose motivation in their professional lives lies in serving the public.
I was glad to read the letter in The Times last week from Mr Nigel Crisp, chief executive of the NHS, who reminded us that we need to take a balanced view of the NHS and its problems. But I would suggest to the Government that in reaching a balanced view we should look at some of the indicators that really matter.
It is a sad fact that clinical outcomes in England for many of the major cancers are below the European average, and often very considerably below the best in Europe. Many patients with heart disease are not receiving the best treatment in a timely fashion.
460
Disabled patients are subject to huge variations in service levels around the country. There is a shortage of dialysis facilities for renal patients. Standards of basic hygiene in hospitals have slipped. Trolley waits are too long and too many.
Although I have just counselled caution over the interpretation of waiting times, there are signs that in certain fields there has been a regrettable deterioration in service standards since 1997. One example cited by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, is audiology, which, despite the Government's welcome initiatives, is now badly under-resourced in terms of facilities and staff. I commend to the Minister, if the noble Lord has not already read it, the RNID's document called Audiology in Crisis—Still Waiting to Hear.
My noble friend Lord Forsyth, in his extremely wise and thoughtful speech, expressed the hope that the Government will not shrink from embracing a genuine partnership with the private sector for the delivery of healthcare. I share that hope. The Government's concordat with the private sector is not, of course, a panacea, but I believe that it opens the way to a real advance in the delivery of services to patients, provided always that Ministers make up their minds to follow it through. What counts for a patient is not where treatment is delivered but rather the quality of that treatment and its timeliness.
I have no doubt that in voting Labour at the general election, many people were implicitly putting their trust in the Government to deliver better services to the public, including healthcare. The next four or five years will be the test of that. It does not require any great insight on my part to point out that the key to success in healthcare will be to lift morale among staff, because on that morale depends the ability of the NHS to recruit and retain the GPs, the consultants, the nurses, the midwives and the other key professionals who deliver care to patients. Many staff are severely overburdened. There are serious shortages in nearly all the main disciplines. The challenges are therefore considerable. But much has been promised. From these Benches, in fulfilling our role as a critical Opposition, we shall nevertheless encourage the Government in their efforts to meet those challenges, and for the sake of us all as patients and as owners of the NHS, we wish them success.
9.25 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, this has been a debate of very high quality, which we all agree was opened in splendid fashion by my noble friend Lord Rooker in his maiden speech. I am certainly delighted to welcome him to your Lordships' House, not least because he has increased the number of Birmingham Peers in the House by at least 25 per cent, although sadly not the even more limited number of Birmingham City Football Club supporters.
Responding to such a debate in the 20 or so minutes that are given to me is undoubtedly a challenge and I shall write to all noble Lords to whom I am not able to

461
respond during the course of my speech. But it is also a challenge because at first sight it might be thought, as the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, suggested, that health, social care and home affairs have little in common. Although I think that the noble Lord directed his dagger at the wrong source, I agree with him that there is a debate to be had about whether the way we debate the Queen's Speech at the moment is the most effective.
When one looks closely at health, home affairs and social care, I would suggest that there are some strong interconnections between those areas in at least three respects. First, as the noble Earl, Lord Howe, identified, there was a humanitarian theme—a theme of civil liberties and individual rights—running through many of the contributions to the debate. The second is the impact on health and well-being in society of the devastating effects of crime and the fear of crime. The third is the management, direction and leadership of two great public services—the NHS and the police force. Noble Lords have today debated how those services might be improved and the role of government in that. I shall come back to that point in a moment.
The impact of crime on individuals is never less than serious. For some it can be devastating. As the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, suggested, crime and the fear of crime often affect the most vulnerable in society. It is often the same group of people who also suffer from major inequalities in comparison with the overall health of people living in this country. Like other noble Lords, I listened to the remarks of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham, who spoke of some of the factors causing serious problems to the very fabric of our society and of the need to tackle the root causes of crime where legislation often has its limitations.
It is surely important to recognise that if we are to have a fair society where everyone in our communities, and not just some, get a fair chance to succeed, then strong public services, the fight against crime and the tackling of health inequalities must be a core part of our endeavours.
In his opening remarks, the noble Lord, Lord Cope, went through the list of responsibilities that have been taken away from the Home Office. I notice that none of them has been allocated to the Department of Health, which is probably just as well. However, I would say to him that the transfer of drugs responsibilities is by no means a downgrading of that matter within government as a whole. The Government will treat these responsibilities just as seriously as they take their responsibilities in tackling crime. As the noble Lord, Lord McNally, suggested, it allows the Home Office to focus on a number of important core activities and within the strategic framework suggested by the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen.
My noble friend's remarks concerning the need to look at previous Home Office legislation to see how
462
effective it has been and what lessons have been learnt certainly struck a chord with many noble Lords. I accept that that is a philosophy which we, too, in the Department of Health need to take to heart If I have learnt anything during my years in the National Health Service, it is that it is a great challenge to move from policy agreement to actual implementation. I certainly agree that we need to focus our attention much more on how policy is implemented and on how to ensure that it is delivered consistently across the field. I noted the offer made by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Cross, to help the Home Office in its review. That will receive the attention that it undoubtedly warrants.
That said, it is fair to point out that the Home Office Bills referred to in the Queen's Speech have generally received a welcome. The Government have set out a 10-year plan for reforming the criminal justice system as well as reforming the law to make it more effective in tackling crime. The criminal justice Bill will form the first stage of that programme and is designed to begin the process of reforming arrangements for sentencing. Several noble Lords have referred to the fact that, in the longer term, we shall have the report covering a major review of sentencing. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Cope, and the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, that ample opportunity will be provided for consultation. We shall also be considering the proposals that will emerge from the review being conducted by Sir Robin Auld.
Like all noble Lords, I listened with great interest to the remarks made by my noble friend Lady Kennedy. She passionately raised the issue of civil liberties. Perhaps I may say that I agree with her comments that state powers have to be held in check. I agree that checks and balances must be put in place. However, as my noble friend Lord Mackenzie pointed out, we also have to consider the civil liberties of the Victims of crime. A balance must be struck here and I believe that the Human Rights Act has enabled us to strike that balance.
As regards the issue of double jeopardy in the criminal justice Bill, I shall refer to the remarks made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham and say that this was not a knee-jerk reaction. This followed on from the report on the Stephen Lawrence inquiry and was referred to the Law Commission, which reviewed this area of the law. The Home Secretary asked the commission to take into account our international obligations, including the European Convention on Human Rights. My noble friend Lord Rooker has stated that we wish to seek consensus in this area. We are keen to encourage the closest possible consultation with Members of your Lordships' House on these very important matters.
Likewise, I shall say in relation to the proceeds of crime Bill that it is surely right that we seek to take action against big-time criminals who for too long

463
have lived off the criminality of others and the misery of the law-abiding public. However, again we recognise that there are important issues which have to be considered. We shall welcome the consultation and full involvement of noble Lords in discussions on the Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Phillips, made some interesting remarks about reform of the criminal courts. He referred to the published interim report. I say to him that, in relation to the magistracy, the Government have said consistently that we see the lay magistracy as continuing to play a significant role in the criminal justice system. I certainly echo his remarks about the valuable role played by lay magistrates in our civic society. I would also say that, from the health service point of view, I regard their position as being similar to that of the non-executives in NHS organisations. They, too, play an enormously valuable role within the community. It is right to say that, although the noble Lord expressed doubts the failing civic responsibilities demonstrated by many people, the fact is that many thousands of citizens in our society make an enormous contribution to public life, and long may that continue.
I greatly appreciated the remarks made by the noble Baroness, Lady Stern, when she referred to a number of issues relating to prisons, the prison population and the rise in the number of prisoners. Let me make it clear that the Government believe that prison should be used to protect the public. Where the public are at risk from dangerous sex or violent offenders, or others who cause real harm to members of the public, it is right and proper that prison should be used. Where dangerousness is not an issue, there should be tough, demanding and focused community penalties which are designed to not only punish offenders but to guide them away from offending behaviour. The Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000 strengthened the use of community sentences by introducing a new focus on enforcement. It will be important to ensure that we monitor its appropriate implementation.
I echo the remarks of all noble Lords who have welcomed the future debate on prisons, which will be led by the noble Lord, Lord Hurd. The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, referred to two interesting initiatives in relation to prison. I shall be happy to take them back for the Home Office to consider and to respond to the points that he raised.
It is worth saying that we have invested money in a number of initiatives to improve the regime in prisons, including drug treatment programmes, offending behaviour programmes and injecting more resources into education. My own involvement from the Department of Health in working with the Home Office to improve the prison health service is beginning to pay dividends.
The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, raised some important points about race relations in this country. I echo his remarks. He will know that the Race
464
Relations (Amendment) Act 2000 is the most radical piece of race relations legislation in 25 years. The remarks of my noble friend Lord Rooker in terms of a review of how we can make sure that such legislation is implemented effectively are important in relation to the questions that the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, asked about the Government's determination to do all that we can to ensure that this country has excellent race relations. He will know that I very much share that view.
My noble friend Lady Howells made some pertinent remarks about the problems and issues of racism in the NHS. I accept the challenge that she laid down to me in relation to equal opportunities in employment and the need to take a whole systems approach towards tackling racism and harassment in the National Health Service.
A number of comments were made in regard to asylum procedures. My noble friend Lord Rooker, who has responsibility for this issue, has listened carefully to the points that were made. I shall follow up a number of the specific issues that were raised.
A number of remarks were made about the management of both the police service and the NHS which I think it will be helpful to consider together. Although the structures and forms of accountability of the two organisations are very different, I believe that there are certain common themes. There is a need for accurate information by which to judge performance and to make that information readily accessible to the public; there is a need to ensure that value for money and efficiency are watchwords for both organisations; there is a need to encourage best practice and to iron out unacceptable variations in performance, and to intervene if such action is required. My noble friend Lord Mackenzie got it absolutely right when he referred to widespread differences and the need for robust leadership.
I heard what the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, said about the Home Secretary's relationship with police forces, but I should say to him that our police Bill is designed to strengthen police forces, their efficiency and their ability to fight crime. The proposals for a new complaints system are the result of widespread consultation and have widespread support within the community.
The debates about the police service and its relationship to central government have the air of some of the debates that we have had in your Lordships' House about the relationship between government and the National Health Service. We have spent many happy hours discussing this. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, has returned, once again, to his charge of over-centralisation, which was echoed by the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman. I will not debate this issue for too long with the noble Earl. I suspect that when the NHS modernisation Bill comes to your Lordships' House we will have ample opportunity to revisit this question.

465
I believe that it is possible—and since I have been given responsibility for performance management in the NHS it is my job to make sure that we deliver this—to reach a sensible balance between the need for robust intervention where there is undoubted failure in delivery with ensuring that much greater autonomy is given to those who are succeeding, and to give people room to breathe, to innovate and to show the kind of leadership that is required. That is what "earned autonomy" is all about. I am determined to see that we put that into practice. The Bill allowing us to place 75 per cent of all NHS spending power directly to front-line staff will enhance that process.
I assure the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, that nothing will be done to undermine the commitment and the priority that is given to mental health. We certainly intend to legislate to reform the Mental Health Act. We are always subject to the strictures of the parliamentary timetable, but we are determined to make progress in that very important area.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans made some interesting points about partnership. I agree with him: it is an easy word to use. It is very hard to make real partnerships work for the benefit of patients and for the public. It takes time and determination. The good news is that, over the past two to three years, relationships between the NHS and local government, to take one partnership, have improved enormously. We want to build on that. The establishment of care trusts as a result of the Health and Social Care Act is one way in which that will be done.
I accept the right reverend Prelate's concern about the pressures on general practitioners. They are under great pressure. We owe them a great deal. We seek, of course, to employ more general practitioners. We have increased the number of medical education places. We also want to encourage more people to return to general practice where that is appropriate. But I also believe that some of the work that has been done in the primary care collaborative is available to show how GPs themselves can improve their working practices.
The right reverend Prelate raised the issue of overseas recruitment. Our aim is to recruit from those countries that have a surplus of medical or nursing staff and not to do anything to undermine the healthcare systems in those countries.
I listened with a great deal of interest to the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth—first, to his recantation in relation to some of the past structural changes to the NHS in which he was involved. I very much welcomed the noble Lord's intervention, although I do not accept his analysis of our stewardship of the National Health Service. I reject the noble Lord's assertion that a public NHS cannot provide a high quality service. I have always believed that if we get the funding right, with
466
the absolute dedication of the staff and the high quality teaching and research that we have in this country, we shall be able to produce the kind of high quality public health service that people in Britain wish to see delivered.
Our approach has been to develop best practice. It has been to achieve greater consistency—that is why we have national service frameworks: the National Institute for Clinical Excellence, the Commission for Health Improvement. Alongside that, the approach is to increase our capacity, with more beds, more staff, renovated A&E services and new services such as NHS Direct.
The NHS is not perfect, but it is improving. I believe that it will go on to improve. I have great confidence that we shall be able to build the kind of NHS that was the express wish of the public in the general election.
A number of noble Lords referred to our intention in the forthcoming Bill to revisit the issue of patient and public participation in the NHS. There is nothing I should enjoy more than further debates in this area. I have said all along that there is only one test for our proposals; namely, that the public and patients will have a greater say, more influence and better representation in those arrangements than they do at present. I am very happy to be judged and tested on those proposals.
Several remarks were made about our relationship with the private sector. We believe that there is much to be gained from partnership. Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, I believe that the private finance initiative can bring resources, investment and expertise to help us speed up, for example, our hospital building programme. In relation to beds, I also believe that the noble Lord is missing the point. If one looks at the trend of bed numbers going back over the years as regards publicly-financed hospitals, one will see a similar reduction. With the national beds inquiry that we have instituted and with our determination to increase capacity in the NHS, the equation will be changed both as far as concerns PFI schemes and publicly-funded schemes.
I should tell the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, that we welcome the concordat with the independent sector. I believe that there is everything to be gained from a good understanding at national and local level. Over the past few months, I know that some very, good contracts have been agreed between independent providers that have enabled the NHS to increase its capacity.
A number of comments were made during the debate about morale in the NHS. When I joined the NHS in 1972, I was told that morale had never been lower. I believe that it has always been a characteristic of staff to say that morale is low. None the less, we

467
must always take note of warning signs. It is most important that the staff in the NHS feel that they are part of the change and that they should feel ownership of the change. By increasing the number of staff, by trying to reduce some of the pressures on them and by improving working conditions and their access to training and development, I believe that we shall be able to improve morale. However, there is a tremendous leadership challenge at local level. One of the reasons that we established a leadership centre was to encourage and help leaders—managers and clinical directors—to develop and lead their staff. I am sure that that is one way in which we shall be able to tackle the issue of morale.
My noble friend Lord Fitt mentioned the issue of juvenile arthritis. I certainly took note of what he had to say. In relation to NICE, I shall simply say that we established this organisation to combat postcode prescribing because the NHS had such a poor record in introducing new techniques, treatments and drugs when they had been proven to be highly effective. The point about NICE is that if it makes a judgment that such treatment is effective, we can then speed up its implementation in the NHS. I should point out to my noble friend that I believe the NICE process has been shown to speed up innovation.
I always take pleasure in debating dentistry issues with the noble Lord, Lord Colwyn. I confirm that we are committed to NHS dentistry. We want to work with the profession. We shall shortly be introducing a workforce review. I should tell the noble Lord that the strategy that I published a year ago is an essential foundation for a new working relationship with the dental profession.
The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, and my noble friend Lord Rea raised the issue of the tobacco Bill. I should like to reassure the House that we are committed to bringing back the Bill to ban tobacco advertising and promotion during the course of this Parliament. As noble Lords opposite well know, there will always be pressure and competition as regards places in the legislative programme. However, as my right honourable friend the Prime Minister said during a debate on this very matter in another place, this is a very high priority. If time permits, we shall try to accommodate it in this Session; otherwise, it will certainly be a high priority for a future Session of this Parliament. We shall, of course, take great note of the comments that have been made in your Lordships' House tonight.
I very much enjoyed and respected the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft. I want to reassure the noble Lord that the lack of any legislation in the area of drugs and drugs misuse is
468
no indicator that that is not a priority for the Government. The noble Lord referred to the 10-year anti-drugs strategy launched in 1998. We are determined to press forward on all aspects of the strategy: young people, communities, treatment and availability. I agree with the noble Lord that research has clearly shown the links between drugs and crime and that getting drug misusers out of the criminal justice system and into treatment works.
I listened with great interest to what he had to say about the potential impact of the National Care Standards Commission on drug treatment centres. I shall study those remarks to determine whether any problems will arise in that connection. As regards treatment, we have set up a national treatment agency. This is a cross-government initiative which brings together budgets from different parts of government. It will ensure that treatment is available and accessible and that there will be high quality services regardless of the route of referral.
I turn to the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Masham. I thank her and the noble Earl, Lord Howe, for their congratulations on my reappointment to the same post. The noble Baroness suggested that I be promoted. I cannot possibly comment on that. However, I agree with her that national specialties constitute a vitally important issue. In decentralising many decisions to the local level we also have to ensure that, particularly with regard to national specialties where there is only limited provision throughout the country, we make sure that there is provision and appropriate treatment and support. That is why we have a national specialties commissioning group. It is a matter to which I shall give full attention.
Last, but certainly not least, I return to the issue of children. Our debate has touched upon social disadvantage in a number of areas and none more important than among children. I very much agree with my noble friend Lord Harrison. He was right to mention welfare, long-term fostering and, of course, the impact of the adoption of children Bill. I agree with his remarks about the training of adoption staff. It is extremely important to ensure that when the Bill is enacted social services authorities will be able to implement it in as appropriate and efficient a way as possible.
My noble friend Lady Gale made some apposite remarks on the involvement of women in politics. As regards legislation being available in time for the Welsh Assembly and Scottish Parliament elections, I cannot give any commitment but I understand her desire for speed in that matter.
I have sought to draw some common threads through what I believe has been an excellent debate, although not, I hope, in any contrived or artificial

469
sense as noble Lords brought so many links to the discussion. The links between social exclusion, crime, fear of crime, health and well-being are so clearly apparent that a cross-cutting approach certainly in central government but crucially at the local level becomes ever more important. I believe that the legislation mentioned in the gracious Speech in relation to home affairs and the Department of Health will help us in that aim. I commend it to the House.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I beg to move the debate be now adjourned until tomorrow.
Moved, That the debate be now adjourned until tomorrow.—(Lord Filkin)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned accordingly until tomorrow.

Barclays Group Reorganisation Bill [H.L.]

  National Australia Group Europe Bill [H.L.]
  The Chairman of Committees acquainted the House that pursuant to the resolution of 21st June the Bills had been deposited in the office of the Clerk of the Parliaments together with the declarations of the agents; the Bills were presented, read a first time, read a second time pro forma and committed to Unopposed Bill Committees.
  House adjourned at five minutes before ten o'clock.

  Defence Diversification Agency
  Defence Diversification Agency
  Northern Ireland: Gas Oil Laundering Prevention
  Northern Ireland: Gas Oil Laundering Prevention
  Works of Art: Indemnity Scheme
  Works of Art: Indemnity Scheme
  Damages Act 1996: Discount Rate
  Damages Act 1996: Discount Rate